The Shotgun Blog
« A New Ban on "Assault Weapons"? Barack Obama (Political) Suicide Watch, Part 1 | Main | Raids on medical marijuana will end »
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Stephen Harper: "In the long run, we're all dead"
Stephen Harper, in response to a question about the long-term effects of inflation and deficits caused by his stimulus policies, just said something along the lines of the following:
"I was taught early in economics classes, the famous economist John Maynard Keynes said that, ‘At times like this, we remember that in the long run, we're all dead.'"
Yep. Stephen Harper. Said that.
He then went on to say that people need to stop worrying about the long term effects of these policies and work on getting the money flowing.
I could point out that Harper wrote his dissertation on disproving the theories of stated famous economist, or I could point out all the "sustainability" projects that we probably should stop paying for if "in the end, we're all dead" is the mentality we're going with. There are just so many things wrong with this picture.
I'm trying to find a link or something. I'll post it when I do.
UPDATE: Quote corrected. The Globe and Mail reports "Ottawa sets up $3-billion stimulus stash":
Prime Minister Stephen Harper agreed there are some long-term risks associated with the stimulus package — but he cited a famous economist to argue that the short-term danger is greater.
“Of course there's all kinds of risks of inefficient, expanded government policies that will continue into the future,” Mr. Harper told a news conference in British Columbia. “I'm not suggesting there aren't long-term risks.
“But I was taught early in economics classes, the famous economist John Maynard Keynes said that, ‘At times like this, we remember that in the long run, we're all dead.' So right now, we worry about the short term. We are worried about the short term, and we've got to get things right now.”
Posted by Janet Neilson on February 26, 2009 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
Comments
Keynes's actual words: "In the long run, we're all dead". Keynes had no children.
Posted by: Scott Gilbreath | 2009-02-26 12:50:00 PM
If Keynes was right (and the multiplier really is 1.5), then we should be spending gazillions instead of just trillions. In the real world though, government deficits crowd out the private market thereby actually destroying more jobs than it supposedly creates and saddles future generations with debt.
I thought Harper knew better ...
Posted by: Charles | 2009-02-26 12:57:52 PM
Good god, Harper is a disappointment.
The people in his riding can't recall him or anything, can they? Politically, he needs to be put out of his misery (in a non-violent, democratic way, of course.)
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-02-26 1:04:52 PM
Scott: he probably did say "in the long run." I'm still looking for a direct quote.
Posted by: Janet | 2009-02-26 1:38:53 PM
Good god, Harper is a disappointment.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-02-26 1:04:52 PM
Harper is finding out that theory and reality don't often mix. Much better to have a realist running the government than a utopian libertarian.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-02-26 2:01:13 PM
Wow, Harper seems to be the Canadian version of Alan Greenspan. Everything he once wrote and believed has been thrown out the window. Unlike Greenspan though Harper is trying to create this narration that he was always some Keynsian prime pumping economist, and that he is entirely consistent with who he once was. That would a neat trick but I am thinking more and more conservatives are not that obtuse.
Yes, please put Canadian conservatism out of its misery. Harper is stale dated anyhow - his time will soon be up. Another milquetoast leader who let the tiniest exposure to circumstance cause him to abandon all that he once believed. One wonders how he managed to raise children.
Posted by: Faramir | 2009-02-26 2:03:54 PM
Janet,
The G&M has the quote here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090226.wPOLstimulus0226/BNStory/politics/home
Posted by: Scott Gilbreath | 2009-02-26 2:24:08 PM
Whatever temporary measure Harper is taking, he's delivering on a promise made at last year's G-20 meeting.
He's gone through great pains to say these agreed-to measures will not be permanent.
Most everybody who has paid attention knows that the Keynsean theory works just fine with temporary measures.
The Mulroney case showed that he could not undo the structural deficit, that is the large bureaucracy created by Trudeau in a plan that Obama is now duplicating.
Obama is obviously a great orator and articulated his vision to change everything in his speech the other night, including finding a cure for cancer.
Right now, the initial bill for the dreamweaver politics is about 50 times that of Canada's (unless my math is wrong).
Therefore, based on population, Harper is spending one-fifth of the amount Obama has recommended Congress turn into spending bills.
You gotta plat the hand that's dealt you.
Posted by: set you free | 2009-02-26 2:39:04 PM
I still trust Mr. Harper more than Iggy or that maniac.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-26 2:59:06 PM
"Well, I learned early on in my economics classes that, as the famous economist John Maynard Keynes said, 'In the long run, we're all dead.'"
Yep. Stephen Harper. Said that.
Posted by Janet Neilson on February 26, 2009
Is he wrong?
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-02-26 4:00:19 PM
New Democrat MP Tom Mulcair called it a recipe for a repeat of the sponsorship scandal. He told the Commons that there was a crisis in the 1990s, too, over national unity, and that the government of the day responded by shovelling money out the door to a variety of projects meant to promote Canada. A number of middlemen took advantage of lax oversight, enriching themselves in an infamous scam that led to the demise of the Liberal government. The government called Mr. Mulcair's position hypocritical. The NDP has spent months demanding fast-tracked spending to infrastructure projects, the Tories noted.
I don't know if you see this as silver lining, but at least the Tories aren't wrong on *everything* -- Mulcair is a hypocrite if he's now claiming to be an opponent of this kind of infrastructure spending and corporate welfare. I suppose Mulcair thinks that there's some way to hand out taxpayer money without breeding corruption.
Oh wait--I almost forgot! Only socialists like the NDP can run government well. Governemnt is like Santa Claus or Peter Pan's fairy dust, it only works if you really truly believe. That was the problem with that nasty ideological American free-market conservative George W. Bush, he couldn't nab Bin Laden, deal with Katrina, pay down the debt, *not* dismantle the Iraqi Army, or do virtually anything competently because he didn't believe enough in government. Come to think of it, that musta been Lenin's problem too: not enough faith in the efficacy of government.
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2009-02-26 4:20:27 PM
The lesser of two evils is still evil, and that includes Harper. Someone here called him a "realist". How incredibly inane.
Posted by: JC | 2009-02-26 7:09:50 PM
This Harper the politician speaking as opposed to Harper the citizen, and it is indeed disappointing. However it is not the first disappointment. Keynes' views are simply not valid. They are the views of a selfish hedonistic person without concern or consideration for future generations. They are not a model to follow.
Still when one considers the alternatives we have the CPC wins. At the same time we should thankful that we do not have Obama.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-02-26 7:10:02 PM
At the same time we should thankful that we do not have Obama.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-02-26 7:10:02 PM
I don't see Harper as dramatically different than Obama. Obama is worse fiscally, but better on some issues socially, and vice versa. Most of their policies are more or less the same. I suppose I'm happy we don't have as widespread hero worshipping for Harper as there is for Obama.
Posted by: Janet | 2009-02-26 8:18:44 PM
Is he wrong?
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-02-26 4:00:19 PM
Not in a factual sense, but anyone with half a brain in their head can see how dangerous a mindset this is for someone who's dictating public policy.
Posted by: Janet | 2009-02-26 8:19:57 PM
The lesser of two evils is still evil, and that includes Harper. Someone here called him a "realist". How incredibly inane.
Posted by: JC | 2009-02-26 7:09:50 PM
Or we could have an asshole running the government who would like to put the Canadian currency on a non-gold based commodity system, but doesn't know what commodities because he thinks that what the "Austrians" would do.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-02-26 8:33:56 PM
Or we could have an asshole running the government who would like to put the Canadian currency on a non-gold based commodity system, but doesn't know what commodities because he thinks that what the "Austrians" would do.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-02-26 8:33:56 PM
Spoken like a true statist.
Posted by: JC | 2009-02-27 7:46:49 AM
Keynes had no children.
Posted by: Scott Gilbreath | 2009-02-26 12:50:00 PM
One day my professor of policy analysis asked me in class, "What have your grandchildren done for you lately?" I replied: "They have given me a goal to strive toward." Who says a philosophy degree is totally useless?
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-02-27 2:01:07 PM
Grant, you can add, "Provided me with joy, given me hope for the future, and given me perspective on how my actions shape the destiny of those who will follow after me."
Either your professor was begging the question to stimulate discussion, or he was a very selfish man.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-27 2:37:43 PM
The lesser of two evils is still evil, and that includes Harper. Someone here called him a "realist". How incredibly inane. - JC, you have to play the hand you're dealt, even if it's the two of clubs. The fact that no solution is perfect is no excuse for refusing to select the best one. Fiery oratory and lofty principles can sometimes fill your heart, but never your belly.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-27 2:40:56 PM
Shane: Well, you have to realize that he was addressing a class of relative youngsters, few of whom would have had children yet, let alone grandchildren. So the answer to his query would have to have been more aspirational than concrete. I think he was just trying to put me on the spot.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-02-27 2:44:52 PM
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Sarah
http://grillsblog.com
Posted by: Sarah | 2009-04-10 6:50:40 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.