Results: Some of the most educated citizens are employed by governments to design economic policy yet the results seem to ignore common sense. Governments use their advice to "manage" the economy and seem surprised when chaos results. Why let them?
Every few years there is a government in power that thinks it can do a better job of controlling the cost of goods and services than simply allowing the principles of supply and demand do this automatically. They might put a cap on the price that can be charged and then are surprised when the supply is reduced driving prices still higher. They may use tax revenue to subsidize the cost of the item which keeps the price at that high level. If people weren't buying that item the price would be reduced. They may force employers to pay higher wages so that citizens can buy the item for the higher price which maintains that higher price while creating inflation. Here are some examples of government meddling. Perhaps government should leave the economy well alone.
1.
1.
In the mid 1970s I had a job that required me to hire staff. We had a scale of salaries and benefits that the business could afford to pay. Our biggest competitor for staff was the federal government who paid starting salaries that were higher than the market could bear and benefits that no company could match. The government also had its offices in prime real estate in the city centre. In order to hire staff we had to pay even higher wages and had to increase the price of our products to cover it. Should government be allowed to use tax revenue to gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace when this drives up the cost of goods and services?
Government jobs tend to be more secure and have an element of prestige. They do not need to offer higher wages and cadillac pensions to hire staff and when they do this they drive up costs for everyone. This is one way governments cause inflation.
21%
•
455 votes
The government has a duty to hire the best quality staff and they should offer higher wages, better benefits and nicer office space to do so. If business wants to compete they should offer the same.
19%
•
408 votes
Taxpayers should be able to trust that the wages government pays civil servants are not higher than they themselves could get for similar jobs since to do otherwise actually increases both their tax burden and the cost of goods and services (a double whammy)
33%
•
736 votes
Other (please specify)
1%
•
22 votes
Not Applicable
40%
•
885 votes
- Rarely
- Mostly
- NO
| Other Answers | Percentage | Votes |
| 0.62% | 10 | |
| You do love to prattle on about insignificant things, don't you? | 0.06% | 1 |
| Get over it. | 0.06% | 1 |
| The study is flawed | 0.06% | 1 |
| not sure | 0.06% | 1 |
| the government employees do not deserve their benefits and raise of salaries | 0.06% | 1 |
| Don't know | 0.06% | 1 |
| It's business and government should play by the rules, it doesn't. | 0.06% | 1 |
| Not a clue; that's why some are paid the big bucks | 0.06% | 1 |
| Undecided | 0.06% | 1 |
| All of the above | 0.06% | 1 |
| Federal Reserve is a private bank cartel. That's why we have huge inflation & ruining the USA civilization today ! | 0.06% | 1 |
| Government workers here are paid less than private positions and their attitudes reflect it. | 0.06% | 1 |
2.
2.
Also in the mid 1970s, the government introduced a range of new social programs and increased taxes to pay for it. They also ran fiscal deficits and convinced citizens that this was just "citizens borrowing from citizens". The government was now competing with other borrowers which drove up interest rates. It also increased the money supply which increased inflation. Wages and prices increased dramatically so government introduced "wage and price controls" to manage the economy. What do you think happened?
Prices at large corporations continued to go up at an even higher rate (especially businesses that made political donations to the government).
20%
•
435 votes
Wages for government employees increased to match the rate of inflation the government had created.
21%
•
459 votes
Wages for unionized employees (large unions of blue collar workers mainly) increased to match the rate of inflation the government had created.
19%
•
412 votes
Small businesses with smaller, white caller employees, (whether unionized or not) lost staff or hired fewer staff. There was a drain of talent from Canada to the US that has continued to this day.
17%
•
367 votes
Merit increases were eliminated at many companies (especially smaller ones) which reduced productivity, increased turnover, and fewer new businesses opened up.
14%
•
311 votes
Other (please specify)
1%
•
26 votes
Not Applicable
48%
•
1053 votes
- Not one.
- None
- Can't think of anything/anytime
| Other Answers | Percentage | Votes |
| 0.60% | 12 | |
| don't know | 0.15% | 3 |
| corporate greed run amok | 0.05% | 1 |
| Corporations raided the pension funds of the management to stay afloat, while those in unions were thankfully protected. | 0.05% | 1 |
| Who knows? | 0.05% | 1 |
| most of the above | 0.05% | 1 |
| the government employees do not deserve their benefits and raise of salaries | 0.05% | 1 |
| Idk | 0.05% | 1 |
| I was not there; don't know | 0.05% | 1 |
| Not sure | 0.05% | 1 |
| All of the above! | 0.05% | 1 |
| I have no idea. | 0.05% | 1 |
| Corruption & never we can do about it. | 0.05% | 1 |
3.
3.
Perhaps the worst example of government fiscal policy producing disastrous results that should have been predictable, was the elimination of Income Averaging Annuities in the early 1980s. IAAs were used by farmers, athletes and those in the arts communities who had what was called an "unusual income." This could be from peak earning years as an athlete, the sale of a piece of art by the artist, a farmer selling of a section of land, and anything else where the income and the tax on it would have been both atypical and significant. These IAAs spread the income and the tax on it over several years to "average out" the income. The media and some left wing economists persuaded the government that these IAAs were a tax loophole and they were eliminated almost overnight with no time given to make other arrangements. Here are some results of this sudden game changer. Which of them should have been predictable?
Farmers who had planned on selling land to other farmers for agriculture in order to retire, instead left the land fallow and sold smaller portions of it over several years to anyone interested (such as Chinese investors)
21%
•
458 votes
Top athletes in Canada suddenly were faced with income tax on their entire income rather than average income. They headed south to the US where taxation was less draconian.
17%
•
373 votes
Insurance companies who had planned to build office towers, shopping centres and other real estate developments using the capital from the sale of IAAs suddenly found this supply of funding had disappeared and either postponed these developments or borrowed the funds. This sudden demand for funding reduced the money supply and drove interests rates into double digit levels with inflation rates in lockstep. Bankruptcies, mortgage defaults, and all the fallout from high inflation were the logical outcomes from a sudden change of rules.
20%
•
447 votes
The sudden cancellation of real estate developments caused high unemployment in the building trades and many other industries. Government had to pay benefits to the unemployed plus introduce various programs to "stimulate the economy" all because of their misguided policies.
19%
•
409 votes
Other (please specify)
1%
•
24 votes
Not Applicable
54%
•
1183 votes
- Had 5 year fixed mortgage but value of home went down in year 4. Stressful time.
- I was a kid
- None
| Other Answers | Percentage | Votes |
| 0.82% | 14 | |
| don't know | 0.12% | 2 |
| Not sure | 0.12% | 2 |
| Corporate greed, not government | 0.06% | 1 |
| Does this stuff keep you awake at night? | 0.06% | 1 |
| combination of the above | 0.06% | 1 |
| the government employees do not deserve their benefits and raise of salaries | 0.06% | 1 |
| No one was prepared for Covid, so it is hardly intelligent to call out misguided policies | 0.06% | 1 |
| All of the above! | 0.06% | 1 |
4.
4.
The population of Canada has been increasing. The government thought its immigration and refugee programs had increased the population by 500K when the reality was an increase of 1.5 million. The government had not factored in how the 500k were going to be housed and jobs found for them. To make the problem disappear, the government is housing refugee families in hotel rooms, apartment buildings, and social housing. They are paying the full market price for this using tax dollars, which has driven up the costs for everyone else (a double whammy). An extra million added to the mix is having a huge impact in the housing market. People on low incomes can't afford these high rents and are sleeping in their cars (or in homeless camps). Should this outcome not have been predicted?
The level of immigration should be tied to the level of available housing and job vacancies.
26%
•
564 votes
The accommodation provided for immigrants should not be the cream of the marketplace that ousts existing citizens because this could cause "economic racism".
20%
•
438 votes
There are much cheaper forms of accommodation such as modular construction that, while not ideal, is still far better than most immigrants had in their former countries.
24%
•
532 votes
Most Canadians welcome immigrants and are more inclined to be generous towards them when they are not experiencing the competition for housing current government policy has created.
17%
•
376 votes
Other (please specify)
1%
•
21 votes
Not Applicable
47%
•
1044 votes
- Must have skills country needs or job to go to otherwise a lower cost option is needed.
- None
- Send them back, our own government won't take care of us, why should it take care of others, putting us last, when we should be first, in our own country?!!!
| Other Answers | Percentage | Votes |
| 0.57% | 11 | |
| The biased premises upon which you base the question, and each of the options for answers, misrepresent the situation, or show misunderstanding. | 0.05% | 1 |
| "Should this outcome not have been predicted?" Yes, it should not have been predicted (?) | 0.05% | 1 |
| Immigration should stop until every canadian has a job and a home | 0.05% | 1 |
| send all freeloaders back now | 0.05% | 1 |
| combination of all the above | 0.05% | 1 |
| the government employees do not deserve their benefits and raise of salaries | 0.05% | 1 |
| We are now not wanting immigrant. Immigration is causing racism, houseing and shortage. Large increae in the illegal and cash work | 0.05% | 1 |
| They should not get anything free | 0.05% | 1 |
| All of the above! | 0.05% | 1 |
| Rent controll | 0.05% | 1 |
5.
5.
Given that many or all of these outcomes were the logical result of ill considered government policies do you think government should hire fewer so called experts and more ordinary citizens with some common sense?
Yes
33%
•
724 votes
No
9%
•
199 votes
Undecided
18%
•
392 votes
Not Applicable
40%
•
885 votes
- Brexit
- over taking citizens
- None
Comments