The fundamental flaw is equating corporate efficiency with public effectiveness. A company’s goal is shareholder returns, so it serves profitable customers and abandons the rest. We see this taken to its extreme with certain venture capital and private equity firms: they can buy a company, burden it with the debt used for its own acquisition, extract massive fees and dividends, and leave it a hollowed out shell. When it collapses, the architects of that failure are shielded from the consequences.

A government’s mission is the opposite: to serve everyone, especially the vulnerable. Applying this profit extraction model to public service doesn’t eliminate costs it just shifts them, following the destructive maxim of ‘privatize the profits, socialize the costs.’ For a corporation, this might be a successful short-term play. But for a government it’s long-term ruin

Applying this profit extraction model to public service

Getting back to 2019 spending levels over a few years is hardly hollowing out the government.

And what that freed up money is doing is investing in stuff that makes those services work better.

For example in healthcare, which is hanging on by a thread, I think a few billion are going to building and renovating hospitals and investing in a new medical school. Those all make the services more efficient and sustainable in the long run.

Edit: My goodness, the cuts are something like 13 billion out of a 500 billion budget.

Most of the money got reallocated to the military though.

They’re cutting 13 billion. 51 billion (over 10 years) is going to local infrastucture; housing, roads, health and sanitation facilities.

Yes, military got more (~82 billion) and I don’t love that. Though, one part I do love is that a chunk of that military is also dual use, so climate emergencies like wildfires, floods etc.

Then give it to firefighters, climate scientists and forestry. The military is reactive not preventative.

Sure, you can dislike the military spending.

That doesn’t mean the budget isn’t investing more in the public than it is withdrawing.

I dislike the increase in spending on military because the returns to the public are minimal, the US has proven that, decades running.

The theme seems to be “reduce operating spending, increase capital spending”. We’ll see how that will blow over with the opposition.

Sorry, I seriously disagree with about all of this.

Inequality is what gives the ultra-wealthy their outsized influence in the political economy.

This is about Canadian politics. We have strict rules and limits on donations, advertising and support. Like anything, could probably be better but it’s a pretty fair balance.

the government can issue currency essentially at will.

Apologies but this is childishly ignorant. Look to most countries in South America about the consequences of doing so. Inflation is very real and reducing the value of the Canadian dollar hurts those who can afford it least.

Taxes aren’t there to fund services. They exist to reduce inequality.

Absolutely not. Being equally poor without teachers, doctors, roads, defence, I mean my God.

tax the billionaires

We do. You let me know how much you think we do currently, how much more you would like.

And if they leave: we’re better off that way too!

Who needs hospitals, schools, emergency responders etc anyway? At least we won’t have dumb ol’ rich people anymore!

You’re welcome to disagree - but everything I said is factual. If there’s something you don’t understand, I’m happy to explain - just ask.

the government can issue currency essentially at will.

Okay, sure, this is technically true. In the same way that technically, you can drink bleach it’s just a very bad idea.

It’s literally how we dealt with the first phase of the Covid pandemic. Was keeping millions of Canadians from being evicted a bad idea?

Covid, and emergencies like it, are entirely the point of fiscal responsibility!

In an emergency, you can max out your credit. If you do that on the regular, for non emergencies, not only will you end up paying an absurd amount of interest, but you won’t be able to borrow more when the next emergency happens!

Great ok so we at least agree that issuing currency is not the fiscal equivalent of drinking bleach, and that there are good and bad reasons to do it.

The theme seems to be “reduce operating spending, increase capital spending”. We’ll see how that will blow over with the opposition.

I mean, that’s how a lot of Canadian politics works… “passed because no one really hated it”…

Which services are you thinking of?

The major thing I’ve seen is reducing the number of public sector employees back to 2020 levels, which doesn’t seem wild. (I haven’t seen a good explanation of why we needed to increase the public sector by 20% since then, nor of what we got out of that. If you have anything, I’d love to read it!) Throw in some reductions of outside consultants etc…

There are undoubtedly some programs getting cut. But given we’re teetering on the edge of an adversary induced recession, that doesn’t seem unsreasonable.

Again, that’s a fine and valid critique of the budget.

The fundamental flaw is equating corporate efficiency with public effectiveness…

This position however, does not seem valid when the budget is putting in more than it removes from actual public services, 51 billion v 13.

Dollars are not scarce items; the government can issue currency essentially at will.

Edit: You CAN drink a small amount of bleach. Just like you CAN print money during a generational event.

A small amount of bleach will burn a bit. A small amount of printing money caused inflation that we also haven’t seen in decades. It hurts families now but that’s the price we paid to help during covid.

removing the carbon cap saying that investments in several sectors would reduce the emissions anyway. A lot of wishful thinking on the budget text, or on the worst case mental gymnastics malice.

A lot of this is through keeping and raising a carbon tax. That makes companies find the most efficient ways to reduce their footprints, rather than the government mandating it for each group. This is the approach favoured by most serious economists and think groups about reducing emissions quickly.

without details what kind of investment they are putting money in

You can look at the “nation building” projects, which include a massive wind farm (green as hell) and a nuclear plant (fairly clean, significantly better than say, oil or gas.)