Cutting non-defence expenditures to pay for increased military spending is discretionary, and not an economic necessity. Canada currently has 1.5 million people actively seeking work who, if employed through targeted spending, could increase production of goods and services that reduce inflationary pressures.
In contrast, reducing government services and transfers would increase joblessness and decrease the service supports that the unemployed and their families depend on.
Hiking expenditures in the defence industries could take up some of the employment slack, but avoids the bigger picture. Doubling NATO spending will likely spark an arms race with non-NATO countries, and the increased greenhouse emissions from military activities will undermine our efforts to address climate change.
We can afford to protect our services, keep employment high, and bolster our security but it must be done in a thoughtful way that does not turn the world into a volatile tinderbox of countries armed to the teeth.
It’s vile, especially to pay for a military that only does sexual assault & terrorism. I vote NDP but was happy to see PP lose, and Carneys first few months have made me too depressed to follow Canadian politics closely.
In the 90s, there was at least a reason to do austerity—bond markets spooked about federal debt. Not the case now, and you’re shedding public servants into a horrible market. And it’s not even clear you can really call it “austerity” if he’s just moving money into frivolous tax cuts & soldiers.
ummm ... more focus on Canadian production means more employment, more active businesses, more commerce and all this activity generates more taxes - that could/should be invested in infrastructure upgrades and new projects. Circular economics ...
Cutting non-defence expenditures to pay for increased military spending is discretionary, and not an economic necessity. Canada currently has 1.5 million people actively seeking work who, if employed through targeted spending, could increase production of goods and services that reduce inflationary pressures.
In contrast, reducing government services and transfers would increase joblessness and decrease the service supports that the unemployed and their families depend on.
Hiking expenditures in the defence industries could take up some of the employment slack, but avoids the bigger picture. Doubling NATO spending will likely spark an arms race with non-NATO countries, and the increased greenhouse emissions from military activities will undermine our efforts to address climate change.
We can afford to protect our services, keep employment high, and bolster our security but it must be done in a thoughtful way that does not turn the world into a volatile tinderbox of countries armed to the teeth.
Informative post, thank you
We were all worried about a Conservative majority. Turns out we got one, with 313 seats.
It’s vile, especially to pay for a military that only does sexual assault & terrorism. I vote NDP but was happy to see PP lose, and Carneys first few months have made me too depressed to follow Canadian politics closely.
In the 90s, there was at least a reason to do austerity—bond markets spooked about federal debt. Not the case now, and you’re shedding public servants into a horrible market. And it’s not even clear you can really call it “austerity” if he’s just moving money into frivolous tax cuts & soldiers.
ummm ... more focus on Canadian production means more employment, more active businesses, more commerce and all this activity generates more taxes - that could/should be invested in infrastructure upgrades and new projects. Circular economics ...