> In an ideal world, the federal government would not diagnose low unemployment and high vacancies as a problem, but as an opportunity. Companies could raise their wages to fill positions or make investments to help their staff work more efficiently. Perhaps some companies would go bust, but so be it: If a fast-food joint needs a steady stream of low-wage cooks and servers from abroad to remain viable, then maybe it’s not a great business.
Advice that ought be heeded.
> Enough with the tinkering and clumsy interventionism.
The editorial really highlights the problem with the Liberal tendency to tinker with what they believe are the levers of the economy. The article doesn’t quite say it out loud, but the underlying issue is that Liberals _believe_ that they’re the technocrats, acting on evidence. But, as the editorial points out, they’re at best clumsy tinkerers, acting in reactive panic, pulling knobs and pushing buttons without really understanding how the machine works. The Globe and Mail’s editors are pointing to a small-C conservative approach:
> More importantly, set the rules and let markets react accordingly.
Which would be great if it were also the big-C Conservative approach, but past experience tells me that isn’t quite likely either.
1 Comment
> In an ideal world, the federal government would not diagnose low unemployment and high vacancies as a problem, but as an opportunity. Companies could raise their wages to fill positions or make investments to help their staff work more efficiently. Perhaps some companies would go bust, but so be it: If a fast-food joint needs a steady stream of low-wage cooks and servers from abroad to remain viable, then maybe it’s not a great business.
Advice that ought be heeded.
> Enough with the tinkering and clumsy interventionism.
The editorial really highlights the problem with the Liberal tendency to tinker with what they believe are the levers of the economy. The article doesn’t quite say it out loud, but the underlying issue is that Liberals _believe_ that they’re the technocrats, acting on evidence. But, as the editorial points out, they’re at best clumsy tinkerers, acting in reactive panic, pulling knobs and pushing buttons without really understanding how the machine works. The Globe and Mail’s editors are pointing to a small-C conservative approach:
> More importantly, set the rules and let markets react accordingly.
Which would be great if it were also the big-C Conservative approach, but past experience tells me that isn’t quite likely either.