by MrBill » Thu 15 May 2008, 04:12:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'T')he standard of living in Canada is dropping, Mr.Bill. My parents lived a life of decadent plenty, in comparison. Housing was cheap, energy was cheap. My mother didn't have to work. They managed with 4 kids on a military salary. They'd have to be clearing well over 150 grand to accomplish this today.
Exactly, but my point is that this 'normal' period that you and others describe is actually 'the outlyer'. It is a brief period of post war prosperity that started to unravel in the 1970s with the first OPEC oil embargo and poor economic policies that ratcheted up deficit spending and by extension inflation.
Canada went down that dead end too. The Trudeau years. But this Golden Age certainly does not begin to describe my grandparent's experience other than they lived long enough to enjoy peace and prosperity later in life. And of my sisters and step-brothers only one or two of us will achieve living standards approaching or exceeding my parents easy to attain financial security.
There are many reasons why. One I mentioned was population growth. But also when my parents graduated from university only 5% of the general population had a Bachelor degree in anything. Relative success was like falling out of a boat and hitting water. They also inherited the financial conservatism of my grandparents depression era age, so they were frugal, but not as afraid to invest as my grandparents. So they got a pretty good ride on inflation after having climbed onto the housing ladder when prices were very low in absolute terms. Even net of inflation housing prices have risen an astounding 70% in real inflation adjusted terms since the 70s.
As we had our primary residence, a cottage at the lake, the farm and rental units we made out like bandits, and all on teacher's salaries. Now an investment banker could not afford their property portfolio much less a teacher or a civil servant. Those were one off historic and economic events.
We may wish that life was so inexpensive and simple again, but in order to get from here to there again we would have to destroy a lot of paper wealth that unfortunately has a lot of real debt attached to it. Another depression would get us there, but as you are generally opposed to anyone ever suffering, I doubt you would support those policies necessary to get us back to square one circa 1970.
But skipping over to your post on the morality of investing and related sentiments the challenge is not wishing it was otherwise, but dealing with what is. The market is trying to write down the value of over-priced assets, and the government and its agencies is desperately trying to avoid that downward revaluation. Houses may be worth $100.000, but governments are trying their best to make sure they stay above $300.000 because otherwise there is no way those two-income families can afford to pay-off their $300.000 mortgage, credit cards, car payments and continue to pay taxes.
We are really just collectively paying for mistakes made by liberal governments back in the 1970s that embraced Keynesian economic policies and deficit spending. Now we're on the cusp of peak oil, resource depletion, climate change, exploding populations and we find that we have not collectively saved enough wealth to deal with those impending economic problems. Partly because for years the liberal-left believed that economics does not matter. And to get elected the right had to adopt their tax and spend policies.
Ironically even though Canada may be better off in some respects you will still find far too many fiscal liberals even if they describe themselves as conservatives. They still believe "Canada is a rich country, so we can afford this, that and everything." The politicians in general are more than happy to oblige. Even in my own family who are Alberta brand conservatives they would still like to see more money for seniors, more money for pensions, more money for schools, hospitals, etc. They are not dumb. They are politically active. They do have access to senior policy makers. But they just do not get it.
You can have any social system you want including a cradle to grave welfare state, but only if you generate the economic wealth to pay for it.
In clear text that means private companies generating enough profits, so that personal and corporate taxes on those profits pay for those social programs. If you are uncomfortable with profits and economic growth then you cannot afford those social programs either. Period. There is always a trade-off. Anyone that is not willing to make that trade-off is just using fuzzy logic.
Gee, wouldn't it be nice if we could live in a prosperous society without any negative effect on our environment, where everyone was better than average, and we could all afford a comfortable lifestyle on one salary regardless of our chosen career or life decisions.
As you can tell I do not get invited to a lot of NDP fund raisers! ; - )) Anyone that is not afraid of the future is blissfully ignorant. My family included. But we play the hand we're dealt.
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.