After my last post, four Masters Students from Ontario have invited me to critically assess some of their articles they have published on their new blog. They are interested in a counter view point. I can respect that. As Hegel proclaimed higher ideas are born out of the thesis— antithesis=synthesis dialectic. So let’s give it a shot a roughneck against university academics.

The article historically traces ideology in Canada (from Keynes to Neo-conservatism) and offers us the chance to begin to make some conclusions about the consequences of those changes— albeit through a socialist filter. The conclusions are too broad to argue in 500 words, so let’s start with some of the premises. The article is predicated on popular leftwing misconceptions about the movement toward liberal markets and greater freedoms.

“to maximum state involvement of the Keynesian policies and recently back towards a minimalist neo-conservative view.”

Keynsian economics is a monetary policy not a political one. Keynsian monetary policy dictates that the government should inflate the money supply to match the demands of production. In that sense Keynsian economics is still the order of the day. The Austrian economists would never have advised a 700 billion dollar bailout. In fact Austrian economics predicted the financial collapse which we are now witnessing.

Also neo-conservatism is hardly the Stephen Harper Conservative model. Neo-conservatism believes in world building, big military and are hardly opposed to deficit spending—see George Bush.

“and more specifically Ontario, the reigning political ideology favours minimal state involvement in economic life.”

I don’t consider the Canadian government to be anything near “minimalist intervention”. Powerful unions, crown corporations, wealth transfer payments, some of the highest tax rates in the world… the list could go on, but the point being that any interpretations that are to be made about the Canadian standard of living/economy should be made with the understanding that Canada is closer to socialism than it is to truly capitalist world.

This ideology (free market) rests on the theory that everyone will benefit from free market societies as wealth tends to have a trickle down effect.

Not exactly, the higher premise is that a free individual living in a free world will be better suited to produce wealth without the interfering of a distant bureaucrat. People are better left to making their own decisions than being led about by a powerful government. See the difference between Russia and North America.

"The social spending that is under greatest attack in Ontario is income maintenance programs….This program subsequently works to maintain inequalities, not lessen them."

All socialist schemes entrench class rigidity. Since the Paris Union man has been limited in the wealth he can produce he has none to pass onto his children, instead he passes on his title (job status), and his rent controlled apartment. This is all well and good, but what about the immigrants, the youngster with no nepotistic connections? Government control and high taxes have limited the private sphere and the public sphere/ and unions are being blocked by the third and fourth generation workers so what are the options for outsiders?