Mark Mullins, of The Fraser Institute thinks so.
In this… recent comment in Canada's Financial Post, he explains why.
I particularly like this paragraph:
"A reasoned approach to dealing with the financial crisis should start with an approach that works with market forces, rather than displacing them or pretending that they do not exist or function properly. Unfortunately, the current anti-market rhetoric is not conducive to such dispassionate analysis and we risk magnifying the next crisis and reducing economic growth prospects as a result. Such is the price to be paid from politicizing public policy."
Rick,
the global situation may improve or worsen, based upon the actions of the main global players, but at the end of the day, our problems remain, and remain unaddressed by us.
Our national position (or lack thereof) preceeded the meltdown, with barely an acknowledgement from leadership that we even have any problems.
Canada isn’t doing too badly though by comparison.
Think their productivity has anyhing to do with it?
Hi Rick,
I painfully disagree with the author. Not with the notion that partially, or, any particular part of the worst is over. But, to the reasons why the author says the worse will be over and better, moving forward, in regards to Government doing no harm, firstly. Also, his assessment of the problem was not really the problem at all–if he gave one, in any event. More importantly, we are now in the beginning of the second half of the total worst phase- the deflationary period- post bubble bust.
Its funny that most financiers, were and still are, begging for a bail-out and a total buying of the toxic-debt from them by government, but now that the government has met the financial markets half way with, at least, injecting, blindly, huge amounts of cash, to them going on about with now, wanting the government to do no harm in regards to regulation, is laughable in its most core essence.
I laid out this claim on the Global View Today, posted in the Caribbean Net News Commentary yesterday and basically, from my view point, the author is not even in the ball park when it comes to the second half of his argument–especially not in the ball park in regards to the need for the G-20 to provide more stability and, neglecting altogether, backing their firms and getting on with the business of unwinding the toxic debt and in addition, regulating the issue that started it all–futures trading in derivatives, which were sold to third and fourth, and, sometimes fifth party investors, worldwide.
http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/oped/oped.php?news_id=12331&start=0&category_id=6
However, the first half of the first phase of the worst period is over. We are now in a serious deflationary second period, where stocks are losing value. Not good for the long term. But good for the short term, especially good for oil and corn prices for the consumer.
So, the second challenge is, beginning the motions to counter-act the over deflation of stocks and commodities–which needed to come down, in any event as it was futures trading in derivatives, which had them sky-high in the first place. You are going to need government to be on stand-by, at the very least, in regards to this issue moving forward.
This is why I say, without reservation, that regulation, on such derivatives trading practices, has to come. Governments in the G-20 would be irresponsible to not regulate.
The author calls for ‘transparency’, when, quite frankly, no one in government or in the marketplace, knew of the impending danger of the recent sub-prime CDS market, because they did not know what to look out for and why it was important to the folks on both Main and Wall Street and the Global Economy at large. Simply put, how do you provide transparency for an issue that you don’t know will occur? Or, how do you provide transparency, when you don’t understand what to make transparent and when being transparent, in this regard, does not stop the issue of the bubble- – something which is the underlying premise of the busting of the bubble? The suggestion is rather far fetched.
All in all though, while we are past the worst end of the first phase, the beginning of the second phase of the worst phase entirely, in regards to deflationary stability, has yet to take full shape in policy direction from the G-20 countries.
Best,
Youri
http://globalviewtoday.blogspot.com/