The TSX has fallen 30% since July – loosing 5,000 points – erasing $600 billion of investors’ equity. And the Mr. Harper’s take? Steady as she goes. Everything is okay. Don’t worry, be happy. Everything is fundamentally sound.
The Toronto stock exchange plunged 1,200 points this morning (Monday Oct 6) and what does Mr. Harper have to say about it?
Less than 10 days ago the TSX had it’s largest single-day loss since September 11, 2001, shedding 840 points. But don’t worry.
Hmmm.
You could call Mr. Harper’s approach the ‘do nothing strategy.’
To me it’s like being on the Titanic and you hear a horrendous rip up in the bow and the Captain says, hey everything’s fine.
His comments: "I remain fundamentally optimistic about the Canadian economy." Optimistic? What charts is he looking at? From where I'm sitting my computer screen shows the markets have fallen off a cliff. Optimistic?
With financial markets around the world in meltdown, Stephen Harper’s pronouncements are puzzling. He doesn’t want to appear panicked, because that would imply he hasn’t been a good fiscal manager over the last 2.5 years the Conservatives have been in power.
Oct 7 Update
Harris Decima's poll today shows the Conservatives skidding to the lowest point in the campaign -- 31%, while EKOS yesterday had them at 33% and Nanos at 34% (Oct6). Avering these three together that's 32.7% -- about 4% below the 2006 election result support.
As Canadians see the finacial melt down in the markets they're realizing that it's been Harper at the helm in Canada and Bush at the helm in the US.
Just how low will the Conservative Party go? Fascinating question -- pollster Nik Nanos always points out that leadership scores are a leading indicator of shifting voter preference.
Harper's leadership scores have been tanking following the leaders debates -- with the highest net negatives -- in fact the only leader with negatives.
While Elizabeth and the Green Party have the highest net positives.
So the shift is continuing.
Political Posturing
I had to laugh when in the US John McCain challenged Obama to stop campaigning and come to Washington to ‘solve’ the financial crisis. I thought to myself, “let me get this straight, the Republicans have been in the White House for 8 years creating the very crisis we’re in the midst of – and they feel it now all falls on the Democratic nominee to solve it – and if he doesn’t immediately drop everything and go to Washington with McCain that he is somehow responsible for it all?” Huhhh?
Harper played the same card throwing the gauntlet down prior to the TV debates saying half the debates had to be spent on the economy.
Harper is trying to suggest that he’s a good financial steward. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Harper came into the job with surpluses and after just 2.5 short years the country is on the verge of going into deficits.
• Harper has increased military funding.
• Harper has given $2 billion a year in subsidies to oil and gas interests while oil has been over $100 a barrel.
• Harper has presided over our economy that in Ontario alone has shed 175,000 jobs since he came to power.
When I look South of the border I see parallels. George W. Bush has created the largest deficits in the world’s history. He came into power with surpluses and will leave his successor with staggering deficits. And this is fiscally conservative, responsible approach to governing?
What has Bush done to create these deficits? The cost of the Iraq war is estimated to be between $2.7 trillion and $6 trillion by the former Chief Economist of the World Bank and the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Bill Clinton.
With more than 70% of our trade with the US – with the US heading into a recession – Canada will inevitably be hard hit.
And Mr. Harper’s key economic strategy has been to develop the Tar Sands – which threatens Canadian economically and environmentally.
The Tar Sands has driven the Canadian dollar to its highest level in 20 years – and has cost the manufacturing sector more than 175,000 jobs in Ontario alone since January 2006. So while Alberta has prospered (and after all Mr. Harper has 28 out of 28 seats in Alberta) Ontario is suffering.
Do we really want more of the same?
A green economy would create jobs in every community by focusing on energy efficiency retrofits to homes and offices. That would create employement in every community not just in Fort McMurray.
A Green government would build hybrids in Canada. And would implement strict new fuel efficiency standards -- a strategy that had it been implemented five years ago would have significantly stemmed the job losses in the auto sector we're now experiencing in Ontario.
We'd implement energy efficiency standards for appliances --
In fact McKinsey, the pre-eminent mangagement consulting firm worldwide has shown that in North American about 46% of the CO2 we have to reduce to meet our Kyoto commmitments can be acheived at a profit!
A green economy would not only create hundreds of thousands of sustainable jobs -- sustainable economically and ecologically.
Of course we have to make the same points ecologically -- we are heading over the cliff environmentally.
Former Chief Economist of the World Bank Warns
Failure to Act on Climate Change will cost $7-trillion
Global climate change will cost the world economy as much as $7-trillion -- if left unchecked -- worse than two world wars and the depression added together.
* 40% of remaining species will be extinct by 2050
* 200 million people will be flooded out of their homes by rising sea levels
* Failure to act will cost $7 trillion -- 20% of global GDP.
* large swaths of the Earth's surface will become uninhabitable
This wasn't some wide-eyed, alarmist environmentalist, it was Sir Nicholas Stern, the World Bank's former chief economist.
However, if world leaders act swiftly, decisively, the preventative solutions will only cost 1% of global GDP.
be spent immediately on dealing with climate change, to avoid higher costs later.
Sir Nicholas argues that spending money now on measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will pay for themselves many times over.