The Shotgun Blog

« "In Praise of Traffic Tickets" | Main | Citizens for jobs NOW! and the folly in Windsor »

Monday, August 31, 2009

In Stephen We Trust

Stephen asks us to get lost again, in the fluffy blue sweater.

Asked about the perception he is cold and aloof, Mr. Harper replied that he didn't enter public life for the limelight – and jokes that he in turn finds journalists hard to approach.

“Honestly, I'm not into politics to play to the microphones and the cameras,” he said. “I'm there to ensure that the government acts responsibly, protects the population and meets its needs. I can take the criticism – it comes with the job – but my main preoccupation is not my personal image, but rather the country's higher interests.”

[...]

The Prestige article features photographs supplied by the Prime Minister's Office of Mr. Harper skating with his son, playing cards with his daughter and the whole family including wife Laureen waving from an airplane door.

[...]

“When I play the piano, I become very involved emotionally, I'm no longer the same person. It's not just a hobby,” Mr. Harper said.

Intense, dude. No pictures of the Prime Minister making patronage appointments. The roll probably got lost in the lab or something. This interview has garnered a lot of attention for the Prime Minister saying he's more interested in what God thinks about his public career than historians. This is a throw away line in American politics. Like saying you're working for ordinary people. It doesn't mean anything. A political courtesy comparable to asking how a complete stranger is doing. You say it to be polite. Being Canada, where much of the media class has a terror of religion, it's being played up.

That hidden agenda we're always told about. Remember? Stephen Harper, free marketing social conservative? Yeah, it's been a while since that's had much resonance. The Prime Minister has spent much of the last three years channeling Lester Pearson. The utterly inoffensive Pearson was famous for wearing bow-ties and saying gosh (in place of the more colourful language common on Parliament Hill). Haprer has countered the fear mongering of the Liberals and NDP by being so utterly boring, and inconsequential, that the electorate will find the whole idea of a hidden anything absurd. They are to assured that what you see is, sadly, what you get. Stephen may trust in a higher power, the electorate is being asked to trust him. Why? Because he's safe and sensible. He's your banker. He's your high school principal.

Harper's crime isn't that he has betrayed his base, sold his principles for power. It's his sheer mediocrity. In three years he has accomplished nothing of any historical note. The bland Pearson led one of the most influential governments in Canadian history. Harper has been marking time. If a majority government ever comes what mandate will the Prime Minister have for anything? Except the status quo?

Posted by Richard Anderson on August 31, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

Pearson led two minorities and left behind little except Medicare, the CPP, and a new flag. None of the three matched his original vision—and it can be argued that none of the three were his idea in the first place. He resigned in 1968 to make way for Trudeau. This, in spite of being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Hardly the towering historical figure you are trying to paint. Iggy supporters take note.

Perhaps you find it boring, Publius, that Canada is surviving this recession better than most if not all Western countries. Thanks in part to Harper, not much is happening here compared with other countries. But I suppose for some, sound and sensible policy must always take a back seat to bread and circuses.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-31 8:30:28 AM

I don't know about any crime that Harper has committted. I know that the sin he committed was the selling out of his principles.

Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2009-08-31 8:42:16 AM

"Perhaps you find it boring, Publius, that Canada is surviving this recession better than most if not all Western countries."

You right whingers will swallow anything. Here is how Canada is doing compared to the rest of the G7. We're dead last.

Posted by: Robert McClelland | 2009-08-31 9:34:53 AM

I'd rather have a reliably disappointing Harper government than either of his rivals, Iggy or Taliban Jack, who are permanently biased in favor of Ontario.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-31 10:01:31 AM

...and yet, I've grown accustomed to his face.....

Harper had libertarian sympathies (as did Gordon Campbell, in private) but I don't recall him ever publicly declaring himself a libertarian. He didn't become the leader of a somewhat philosophically mercurial party like the Conservatives in a ridiculously futile attempt to secretly convert Canada into libertopia. He is perceptive enough to see that Canada is structurally majority statist (Canada had its "hope and change" moment with Pearson and Trudeau). To hold power he just needs to play that game as lightly as required to pull in moderate Liberals (and red neck NDPs). As for his annoying mediocrity, for a nation that embraces mediocrity and penalizes excellence, Harper is as good as it gets.

Libertarians would help their glacial advance more by handing out copies of Atlas Shrugged to high school students than whining about Harper's "betrayal".

Posted by: John Chittick | 2009-08-31 10:15:16 AM

His own past actions speak louders over his mere PR words..

(Job 13:4 KJV) But ye are forgers of lies, ye are all physicians of no value.

Matthew 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

I still would rightfully rather see PM Stephen Harper first live a sermon, the truth instead of too often now merely preaching it to others and I really do think it is so farcical how he sinfully toonow is so ready to condemn the others, to gossip about them, to now preach about the other person’s sins but someone how he can’t seem to see, deal with his own false abuse of others, his own sins, and his own false pride. But all that bashing of others by Harper now did not still deny his own sins and his own wrong doings though now.

I have often also met now even in evangelical circles the despotic foremen, dictatorial types, bully, jungle fighter leaders, the same persons who think they are supreme over all others, they can take the law into their own hands, and even do what they want over any others, physically now as well. I have not totally now understood how these unacceptable, abusive slave drivers got to this personality stage or why they falsely think in their abusive pride they will get away with it forever now as well.

I have often heard it said that most Canadians Canada wide now are still like fearful sheep they are too ready to be fleeced, sadly it also seems they must have ostrich genes in them for when you present negative truths they tend to often rather bury their heads in the sand as well it seems.. especially in in too many of the evangelical churches.. or the ostrich sheep in Alberta who also now too often seem to think no Conservative politician can ever do any wrong rather it has to be the other bad guys, you know the liberals. Or the BQ separatists, the communist NDP… But the wolves in sheep clothing exist Canada wide, in Conservative, Alliance churches, political circles undeniably as well.

Freedom of speech to many of these despotic, self centered, agenda oriented preacher is generally one way, they alone are allowed to do all of the talking, and no one else, everyone else is only allowed to listen is also what I have directly experienced here too. If you challenge what they say they falsely do immediately divorce you, even physically assault you and kick you out

Reality, you still tell who they are by what they do and not what they say..

Posted by: Those lying Rednecks | 2009-08-31 10:35:52 AM

You right whingers will swallow anything. Here is how Canada is doing compared to the rest of the G7. We're dead last.

A single-quarter snapshot on a "progressive" economics site? This is your stunning exposé? It is to laugh.

This site, citing the Conference Board of Canada, claims Canada "is weathering the recession better than most" and is set to move from 11th to 5th among 17 comparator countries.

And this site praises Canada's "relatively sound finances that helped it outperform the rest of the G7 in 2008 and early 2009," although it does admit that our reliance on US exports does hamper our potential growth.

And in a nod to those who read only "progressive" papers, here is an article from the Toronto Star, announcing that "Canada climbs ranks because the recession is exacting a deeper toll on other countries."

A single-quarter snapshot on a "progressive" page. Good grief. Amateur night is now over, Robert. Smoke two joints and call me in the morning.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-31 11:20:55 AM

I'd have to agree with Shane on one minor point; one quarter does not make a trend.

But I'd have to challenge anyone else who believes that desperate gov'ts attempting to maximize GDP is a good thing.

1. Sustainability. Is it really sustainable to just inflate the money supply to foster growth? Growth has to come from savings or else it cannot, by definition, be considered sustainable.

2. Looking at GDP only is like an analyst only looking at a firm's income statement. It's called a balance sheet. Ignore it at your own peril.

3. GDP is essentially made up of 5 components. "G" is the one which is actually growing in most countries. I'd question any GDP number where the large majority of growth is based on stealing from the future.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-31 11:33:43 AM

and is set to move from 11th to 5th among 17 comparator countries.

When it actually does, Shane, call me. Until then it's nothing more than wishful thinking.

Posted by: Robert McClelland | 2009-08-31 12:08:54 PM

And to be honest Shane, progressive economists are usually pretty good at identifying the problem. The difficulty with them is they don't properly identify causation and therefore propose the wrong solution.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-31 12:27:00 PM

Charles, it's not just the Canadian government making these relatively positive predictions for the Canadian economy. If it were only the government saying it, I'd be suspicious. (After all, what government holds a press release to tell everyone how badly they're doing?) The fact that it is independently corroborated gives it considerably more credence.

Robert, take your rebuttal like a man. You leaped to a hasty conclusion so you'd have something to gripe about and were called on it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-31 2:48:24 PM

Frankly the fact that the MSM are not doing a non-ending love-in with the PM is positive. History also confirms that a charismatic leader equals doom. A few of these were Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Castro, Trudeau and now Obama (the results are not all in yet).

It is better to judge based on the actions of the person, and I admit that to date many of the these (or rather lack of) leave me extremely disappointed. Still I admit that on a whole the present government is preferable to the alternatives. My biggest criticism is that the PM continues to do house-sitting for the Liberals rather than implementing anything conservative. So the lack of action in dismantling the long gun registry, the total silence on the national embarrassment of the CHRC and CHRT, and the bail-outs, not to mention the increase in government size and spending, come to mind without any effort.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-31 2:51:38 PM

"Charles, it's not just the Canadian government making these relatively positive predictions for the Canadian economy."

I wasn't trying to contradict anything you were saying for once. I simply making the point that GDP growth is a very dangerous measure of success (especially on a short term basis i.e. less than 5 years).

"The fact that it is independently corroborated gives it considerably more credence."

Do you know why the consensus of economists is not used as a leading indicator (like consumer confidence, the stock market, or the yield curve for example) by investors Shane?

Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-31 2:59:17 PM

Finally, I was also pointing out that progressive economists (for the most part) have correctly identified the problem (we don't produce enough, we don't save enough, and we have built our economy on debt rather than savings).

Unfortunately, the blame things like capitalism, the stock market, speculators, etc. and do not seem to have a deep enough understanding of our financial system to determine the real cause.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-31 3:10:57 PM

Robert, take your rebuttal like a man.

The prognostications of the Amazing Kreskin is not a rebuttal, Shane.

Posted by: Robert McClelland | 2009-08-31 3:42:24 PM

Do you know why the consensus of economists is not used as a leading indicator (like consumer confidence, the stock market, or the yield curve for example) by investors Shane?

Would these be the same investors that went nose-first in the sand last year? I am well aware that pundits have their limits, and are often wrong. But individual investors have no better a track record. For everyone who cleans up, there are at least as many busts.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-31 10:06:20 PM

The prognostications of the Amazing Kreskin is not a rebuttal, Shane.

Like a man, I said. Not a creepy little critter with four paws, a tail, and that goes, "squeak, squeak."

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-31 10:08:07 PM

"Like a man, I said. Not a creepy little critter with four paws, a tail, and that goes, "squeak, squeak."

You mean like...
“When I play the piano, I become very involved emotionally; I'm no longer the same person. It's not just a hobby,”

But that was a nice one Mr. Art-peur.
Too bad the rest of us do not become very involved emotionally when you play the violin.

One might not like the Liberals for being liberal, The Bloc for being separatisssssss, the Greens for being green and the NPD for being socialist; but how can someone defend the CPC and put his confidence into a party that is clearly nothing of what it pretends to be in the first place...?

Posted by: Marc | 2009-09-01 2:15:37 AM

But that was a nice one Mr. Art-peur. Too bad the rest of us do not become very involved emotionally when you play the violin.

Visit his blogsite and you'll understand the inspiration for that remark. And don't kid yourself; many analysts have remarked that, policy-wise, it's getting hard to tell the Conservatives and Liberals apart. If the Conservatives successfully occupy the centre, there will be nowhere for the Liberals to go but Left, and that stage is already very crowded in Canada.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-01 6:32:54 AM

"I am well aware that pundits have their limits, and are often wrong. But individual investors have no better a track record."

An truly idiotic statement. The stock market and the yield curve are known as leading indicators. Which is why they are so difficult to predict. They are advanced indicators (about 6 to 9 months) of economic activity with a correlation of about 0.7. The track record of investors on a 6 to 9 months basis is clearly superior to the consensus of economists. You want to debate this any more Shane?

Btw, I know you're trying really hard to show you know more than I do about finance and economics, but you're really making yourself look stupid.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-09-01 9:29:51 AM

Sure glad I cancelled my subscription. You guys must be from Ontario where the entitlement culture is alive and well. When you actually do publish some relevant and responsible journalism, I might visit this site again, until then, you contribute to the mistrust/disgust of ordinary Canadians of the media.

Posted by: Janet Webb | 2009-09-01 11:33:28 AM

Tell me, how have investors done this year? How many investors saw the crash coming and got out in time, and how many lost their shirts? Are bankruptcies up or down? You cite a specific 6-9–month window only, which suggests that the picture outside that window isn't so rosy.

I realize I'm treading on your toes here, Charles, since you fancy yourself the reincarnation of J. P. Morgan or something, and are apt to take any disagreement about financial matters quite personally, but if investors are so clever, why aren't they working as economists and investing? If investors are so clever, why is the world economy, which their investments drive and on which they depend for their income, in ashes?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-01 11:38:11 AM

P.S. "truly" does not start with a vowel sound; there therefore the proper article is "a," not "an." Remember, basic literacy is an important asset if you're going to make a habit of calling other people idiots.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-01 11:39:07 AM

"Remember, basic literacy is an important asset if you're going to make a habit of calling other people idiots."

My first language is French moron. And besides, typos are not an indication of lack of intelligence. Inability to come to a logical conclusion most certainly is however.

And the point was that investors are more accurate at predicting the economy than economists are. The facts bear this out. Look at any leading indicator.

"why aren't they working as economists and investing?"

Because being an economist usually requires making public statements. Professional investors have a fiduciary duty to maximize returns for their clients, which entails keeping their investment strategies secret.

"If investors are so clever, why is the world economy, which their investments drive and on which they depend for their income, in ashes?"

Most investors aren't that clever. They're simply more clever than economists. That's why the best investors are contrarian (the minority). They buy when everyone else selling and vice versa.

The financial system is in ashes because it is centrally managed and controlled. We inflated, got a bubble, and now we're paying the price. Does that about sum things up for ya?

And oh, I usually get testy when someone constantly calls my ethics and personal character in question. I dunno ... maybe I'm just strange that way. Now buzz off.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-09-01 2:38:35 PM

"They buy when everyone else is selling and vice versa."

Quick quick! Must fix typo before Shane accuses me of being stupid ...

Posted by: Charles | 2009-09-01 3:07:34 PM

Final comment:

I find it very interesting that this starting off with my simple statement that using the consensus of economists to forecast the economy is largely useless. A much better tactic is to follow leading indicators such as consumer confidence, the yield curve, the stock market, the money supply, hours worked, etc. Of course a much better strategy is to listen to the Austrians or to very smart investors (the problem is most of these investors will probably not be willing to share, but that's another matter).

How did this end up being a conversation about the performance of investors overall?

Posted by: Charles | 2009-09-01 3:22:18 PM

My first language is French moron. And besides, typos are not an indication of lack of intelligence. Inability to come to a logical conclusion most certainly is however.

Oh? They don’t use commas in French, either, then? Typos do indicate a lack of care and thoroughness, and investors need both.

And the point was that investors are more accurate at predicting the economy than economists are...most aren’t that clever...they’re simply more clever than economists.”

Two times nothing is still nothing. Without a basis for comparison, this statement is meaningless. It’s as broad and general as possible with a lot of hedge room. You’re now sounding more like a lawyer than an investor.

That’s why the best investors are contrarian (the minority). They buy when everyone else selling and vice versa.

You need a lot of time and patience for that approach to work. You also need balls of steel. Usually even a dolt can see the bubble growing. Investors lose their shirts because greed overrides their caution and they keep holding on and holding on, hoping to eke out the last bit of dividend before the axe falls.

Making statements about the general direction of the economy does not interfere with an one’s ability to invest shrewdly. It’s not a conflict of interest.

The financial system is in ashes because it is centrally managed and controlled. We inflated, got a bubble, and now we’re paying the price. Does that about sum things up for ya?

Financial systems have developed bubbles and crashed even in the days when there was little or no central management. In fact, in the time of the Great Depression there were fewer government controls and safeguards than there are today. And not since then have half the banks in America failed. Fancy that.

And oh, I usually get testy when someone constantly calls my ethics and personal character in question.

Then maybe you shouldn’t be constantly calling other people stupid. Being a maverick doesn’t make you smarter than the pack. It just makes you a maverick.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-01 7:38:20 PM

Quick quick! Must fix typo before Shane accuses me of being stupid ...

You're not doing the dance.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-01 7:39:12 PM

How did this end up being a conversation about the performance of investors overall?

Because you made it one.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-01 7:39:41 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Monday, August 31, 2009

In Stephen We Trust

Comments