Consumerism

The advent of televised commercials many years ago had a profound effect on society. There always had been commercials, on radio, in magazines and daily newspapers, on billboards, but none with the impact of the TV variety. The audience salivated at those beautiful products and went out and bought, bought, bought; and in the following years it was more and more on credit.

A hundred years ago, if you wanted to buy a house or any major item, a sizable amount of cash was required. Following the second world war, I remember down payments of 30% or more on cars. A mortgage down payment was out of reach for many. People had to save for what they wanted. All in all, not a bad form of discipline. Gradually, over the years however, the lenders made it easier and easier until today no money down at all is required, and all hell has broken loose. People bought large luxury homes at sub-prime rates which they plainly could not afford, so when the rates went up they defaulted. We all know the result.

The credit card companies keep filling my mailbox, and everyone else's, with invitations to sign up. It is now common for a person to have several cards maxed out. And as these companies have their headquarters in Delaware and South Dakota where there are no usury laws, they can charge whatever interest rate they like. It doesn't take long at eighteen or twenty per cent to get deep in the hole.

Credit in the financial realm has led to collapse of the stock market. Big investors and hedge funds bought on margin to a point where an otherwise mild "correction" was disastrous for them, with losses running into the billions. The panic selling pulled the rug from under financially sound dividend-paying stocks, owned by prudent investors and conservative mutual funds, sending them tumbling. Pensioners and those putting away for their pensions are badly hurt. When the bad go down, they pull the good with them.

And what is the cure for all this mess? Governments are injecting billions of taxpayer dollars to loosen up credit so that we can buy more things and thus save ourselves. On credit. George Bush has been telling us for some time - Buy! Buy! Buy! That's the cure? I thought it was the disease.

In the comic books of my childhood, the arch-fiend mad scientist professor whose diabolical schemes had been thwarted, is seen standing on the edge of a high cliff screaming "Fools! All of them fools! They wouldn't listen! They don't understand!" Somehow I feel for this madman. Given a powerful bullhorn and a high precipice, I'd like to do the same.

Will the world take a lesson and back off a little on this greed thing? Will it be seen that shopping for more and more goods is not really in the spirit of the American Dream? At 5 a.m. on Friday, at a New York Wal-Mart, two thousand shoppers, some of whom had lined up since 9 p.m., broke down the doors and stampeded killing an employee. Police who were trying to help the victim were jostled. Go figure.

It seems that my previous post (see below) was premature. Or maybe someone in Ottawa read it (yeah, sure) and decided on something better. The three opposition parties left no doubt that they mean to defeat the government and propose a coalition. Stephen Harper reacted quickly by cancelling Opposition Day on Monday and putting off his economic statement for a week. Just which side will benefit from this delay remains to be seen.

Harper might have won a majority in the recent election had he not alienated Quebec voters with his cultural funding cuts and stiff penalties for youthful offenders, which shows just how little he understands the Québecois. Now he appears to have shot himself in the foot with his proposal to eliminate funding to political parties based on how many votes they get. ($1.95 per vote) It would cripple the opposition parties but not the Conservatives, who can count on friends with deep pockets. This sleazy move resulted in great anger, and not only from the parties concerned. Is Harper not, as the British would put it, too clever by half?

This will be fun to watch.

Jack in Fantasy Land

In 2004, Jack Layton tried to make the Canadian electorate believe that he could become Leader of the Opposition, displacing the Liberals. This, of course, was nonsense and only served to elect the Conservatives because Jack hammered the Liberals relentlessly and gave a free pass to the Conservatives. His NDP finished a distant third. So what does he do in the 2008 election? In another flight of fantasy, he tells us that he will become Prime Minister. Again, distant third.

It would serve this country well if Jack would come down to the ground and look around. Harper won because the "left" was divided. Had the Liberals, NDP and Greens been united in one party, the outcome would have been much different.

It used to be that the right wing was divided between Progressive Conservatives and Reform or Canadian Alliance, or whatever, which made Liberal victories almost automatic. Harper brilliantly carried out a "unite the Right" campaign, which was no easy matter because the two parties had a distinct dislike of each other. He succeeded and now the opposition is fractured. The shoe is on the other foot.

The Liberal Party has never been "left". It has always held the center. True, there have been left- leaning members such as Lloyd Axworthy who was instrumental in the land mine ban campaign, but such progressives have been outnumbered over the years by right-leaning folk such as C. D. Howe, Robert Winters, Mitchell Sharp, Paul Martin and so on. On the whole, however, the party has been well balanced.

The absorption of the left-leaning NDP and Greens would not greatly unbalance the Liberal Party. If Jack would get off his treadmill and advocate such a measure and help bring it to fruition, he would probably end up as deputy leader in a cabinet post and perhaps look forward to a leadership convention in the future.

It's not going to happen, of course, with the result that both parties will remain in limbo for a very long time.

Ants and Grasshoppers

The fable tells us that the industrious ant weathered the winter because he worked hard and prepared for it, while the funloving grasshopper perished when the cold came. This is not quite the case in the insect world, but the moral is well understood. It's not quite the case in the human world either, if we read the headlines about the global financial crisis. The grasshoppers are being rescued and the ants will pay the price.

It is hard to see what was accomplished at the G-20 meeting in Washington this past weekend, other than brave words. Congress is divided on rescue legislation and people are furious that the culprits should get away with the folly that brought about this whole disaster. The banks, the auto and oil companies are the objects, deservedly, of public anger and hatred. There are mutterings of riots in the streets. There is the odd hint of revolution.

Let's hope not. Revolutions are violent, bloody and counter-productive. Does anyone have any ideas about getting us out of this mess? There's a Nobel Prize waiting for that person.