tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2732335530726828393.post1627775438225811658..comments2024-03-05T06:32:42.206-05:00Comments on A Different Point of View....: Flaherty's Legacy: The Good, The Bad & The UglyNick Fillmorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01164453733837765836noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2732335530726828393.post-44709366801474858672014-12-04T17:53:39.072-05:002014-12-04T17:53:39.072-05:00And perhaps a book might be the better approach?And perhaps a book might be the better approach?Dwight Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14389833479219422837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2732335530726828393.post-57622435551848745952014-04-16T20:52:04.813-04:002014-04-16T20:52:04.813-04:00One of the things I find really disturbing is the ...One of the things I find really disturbing is the use of budgets to fly all those other legislative changes without debate. Is Flaherty complicit in that as well? Greg Hooperhttp://www.thisismyurl.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2732335530726828393.post-86611028258381613292014-04-16T11:55:49.215-04:002014-04-16T11:55:49.215-04:00Jozef, interesting point. But I don't think Ha...Jozef, interesting point. But I don't think Harper played any kind of a positive role in the good things attributed to Flaherty.Nick Fillmorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01164453733837765836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2732335530726828393.post-31339139839851386592014-04-16T11:16:10.720-04:002014-04-16T11:16:10.720-04:00Just an observation and maybe you could explain . ...Just an observation and maybe you could explain . . . when you write of Flaherty's 'good' you attribute it to him, when you write of the 'bad' and 'ugly', it becomes Flaherty/harper. If as you say, Flaherty was on a 'short leash', why wouldn't the good be Flaherty/harper as well? Interesting how writing in a certain way can convey messages that might suggest seeming bias? JCVdudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12897261382226863302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2732335530726828393.post-59665763810260843052014-04-15T19:58:21.914-04:002014-04-15T19:58:21.914-04:00Well folks, I didn't include everything, and p...Well folks, I didn't include everything, and perhaps I left out some important things. If I had put everything in I would have had book!Nick Fillmorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01164453733837765836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2732335530726828393.post-87771436147097888292014-04-15T19:18:54.926-04:002014-04-15T19:18:54.926-04:00What about his destruction of Income Trusts and th...What about his destruction of Income Trusts and the fact that the mainstream media left him completely off the hook?<br /><br />VW MacLeanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2732335530726828393.post-55540412789758394642014-04-15T17:31:42.000-04:002014-04-15T17:31:42.000-04:00Another very interesting "take" on what&...Another very interesting "take" on what's going on around us. I just Googled "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" and found a VERY illuminating review of it in the "Financial Times" published in the U.K. . Reference: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/0c6e9302-c3e2-11e3-a8e0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2yzbAC5sj F.T. reviewer Martin Wolf starts by saying, "French economist Thomas Piketty has written an extraordinarily important book. Open-minded readers will surely find themselves unable to ignore the evidence and arguments he has brought to bear.....". Robert T. Chisholm - Associate Member, O.S.P.E.Robert T. Chisholmhttp://www.exposethismuck.com/SAMART1.htmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2732335530726828393.post-84216973385642108882014-04-15T15:45:14.846-04:002014-04-15T15:45:14.846-04:00Nick:
In Oct. 2008, with the financial markets me...Nick:<br /><br />In Oct. 2008, with the financial markets melting all over the world, Harper proclaimed that Canada would not experience a recession. Then he added for good measure that the only way Canada would fall into recession is if the opposition parties came into power (Harper had a minority government at that time). In Nov. 2008, with the global financial markets in worse shape, Harper admitted that Canada would fall into recession, but only a "technical" one. Then in Dec. 2009, when the floor had completely fallen out of global financial markets. Harper announced that a "depression" was possible after all. He was, of course, wrong on all three counts. Canada fell into a real recession but came nowhere near a depression. Imagine that: for a "trained" Economist, Harper could not even see the recession that was at the end of his nose !!<br /><br />And through it all, Flaherty had stood by Harper steadfastly. Imagine: a Finance Minister who also failed to see a bad recession at the end of his nose is now being hailed as carrying out his functions competently. Surely, they jest, eh?<br /><br />These people who praise Flaherty must have very short memories because both Harper and Flaherty did not want to stimulate the economy. They fought tooth and nail with the opposition who had wanted the stimulus: remember how Harper prorogued Parliament to escape a looming vote of no confidence from the coalition between the Liberals and NDP and supported by the BQ? It was only after prorogation, I recall, that Harper and Flaherty brought in a budget with the requested stimulus.<br /><br />I still remember how Harper had criticized the Liberals for not allowing our banks to merge. In fact, all the banks (except for Scotia Bank, if memory serves), had already lined up their dance partners. Fortunately, Paul Martin did not give in to the continuous pressure from Harper. If the bank mergers had been allowed to occur, surely at least one of the merged banks would have failed in the 2008/9 financial meltdown. Flaherty was not involved in this but surely it is a very big stretch to praise him for overseeing our banks so well that they did not collapse during the financial meltdown. The credit for the latter is surely for the Liberal governments of Chretien and Martin, not Harper and Flaherty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com