Comment 32533

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted July 30, 2009 at 22:44:00

The period of time between 1946 and 1979 was the period of time when the middle class was born and the economy grew much faster than today. It was also a period of time when suburbia was the dominant form of housing. Mix these two facts together and lefties come up with the conclusion that suburbs are destructive to the economy. Huh?

In fact, Canada has more people today than it did thirty years ago (scale) and yet the economy grows much slower today than it did then. Same goes for the U.S. and Europe. Anti-private sector China had over 500 million people 30-40 years ago, high population density and yet there was mass starvation due to economic central planning. Now that it has allowed greedy business people to keep and invest what they earn, it's unleashing the human potential for wealth creation.

If Hamilton embraced the private sector and limited government spending to the rate of inflation plus population growth, this city's economy would boom. By allowing the smart people who earn the profits to reinvest that money in their own operations, these wealth creating businesses could expand faster, increasing demand for labour and driving up real wages for workers.

If anyone thinks that population density is the key to wealth, explain why Mumbai, India has such massive levels of poverty? It wouldn't have anything to do with India's long love affair with central planning would it?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds