Theory:
The Modern Economic Intervention Cycle
Why We are Hooked to Deficit Funding
After World War II, although the military conflict had ended, the struggle for dominance between nations was far from over. Countries continued to wage war against one another — this time not through military means, but through economic and monetary superiority. Friend or foe made little difference. What mattered most was economic size, productive power, and strategic leverage. In this new form of competition, governments in developed countries began aggressively intervening in their economies — primarily through large deficit spending and monetary stimulus — in an effort to generate artificial growth and short-term stability. The gold standard was an impediment to this approach, hence it was removed.
When problems inevitably arise (inflation, excessive debt, asset bubbles, or recessions), they tend to step back and allow the currency and money markets to “correct” the imbalances through inflation, currency devaluation, or market downturns.
Left entirely to themselves, free-market economies would likely grow more slowly and remain smaller in scale. However, because nations are locked in a competitive race for economic size, power, and living standards, no country wants to fall behind. As a result, nearly all developed nations engage in the same high-intervention strategy — creating a collective cycle of artificial stimulus followed by eventual market-driven corrections.
This is not sustainable economics. It is a high-stakes gamble dressed up as responsible governance. Why then are we not collpasing? Because every one does it, for context, the United States currently carries a debt-to-GDP ratio of roughly 123%, Japan around 140%, and Italy around 120%. Canada’s federal debt-to-GDP ratio is currently under 43%. Yet we still hear exaggerated alarm from Pierre Poilievre and others.
Principle #1: Measure is not GDP or Per Capita
GDP is imperfect — It measures economic activity, but not necessarily well-being, sustainability, competitiveness, efficiency, or quality of life, or even wealth building from a social or national point of view (only a few at the top get richer, with the overall population remaining under debt or wishing for thier home prices to go up in value)
Instead we measure economy by Purchasing Power and Ability to Save of the Canadian people.
Not The GDP
Thing
Stop Picking Winners and Losers
Principle #2: Stop Picking Winners and Losers
Both Liberals (who love industrial policy and subsidies) and Conservatives (who often give corporate welfare to big donors) do this. Either it is the Auto Industry, or the Battery Industry, or this industry or that. First of all it does not work, second, the public cannot guarantee that no back room deals took place and there is no “unintended beneficiary” of such dealings.
Mostly it happens for idelogical reasons or strong political beliefs, like “climate change” or “Green economics”.
Principle #3: Government as a Regulator and Consumer, Not Producer or Investor
Government-run businesses are typically burdened by excessive bureaucracy, inefficiency, and slow decision-making. Even in areas where private companies operate (such as construction, where one often sees 24 workers digging a single hole), adding government involvement usually makes things slower and more expensive. If the government wishes to provide essential services to those who cannot access them through the market, it should act as a consumer — competitively purchasing those services from the private sector, just like any other buyer.
Principle #4: Government is not a Job Mill, but an Enabler of Economic Activities
Both the Conservatives and the Liberals frequently tout “job creation.” Even if they do create jobs, we must ask: At what cost, and how sustainable are they? A real job is an occupation that provides value to the employer and satisfaction to the employee. For this relationship to be sustainable, both parties must benefit. Government interference — even when done in the name of equality or equity — often distorts this natural balance.
For example, how can the government effectively help the disabled, young workers, immigrants, and those with lower skills find meaningful employment?
Welfare is not the answer, as it tends to create dependency. Wage subsidies for vulnerable groups, while well-intentioned, often face strong public opposition — especially when directed toward immigrants.
A better approach is for government to focus on removing barriers to employment, upgrading skills through practical training, and helping people transition into the workforce. These might be hapening right now, but do we know how effective they are? How many people are excluded from these programs? How much is wasted?
Principle #5: People Involvement
We believe Canadians — not just politicians and bureaucrats — should have a meaningful voice in how public money is invested and spent.We will introduce real mechanisms for public involvement, including participatory budgeting pilots, citizen oversight committees, and transparent consultations on major investments and projects. Public funds belong to the people, not just the taxpayer, government, or any group.
Therefore, the decisions about how they are used should meaningfully involve the people.
People’s Involvement
Growth
Oriented
Principle #4: Should Build wealth
Government spending and investment should not merely maintain the status quo or buy votes — it must actively build long-term wealth for the Canadian people. We reject the idea that public money is only for consumption or redistribution. Every major fiscal decision — whether infrastructure, education, innovation, or industry support — will be judged by one key question: Does this increase the real wealth, productivity, and prosperity of Canadians?
Our fiscal policy will prioritize investments that generate lasting returns for the public — higher wages, stronger communities, better opportunities, and a more prosperous nation for current and future generations.
Very similiar to “red tape”, “unleash” is not a policy directive, it is a “catchphrase” that angry or frustrated voters might like to hear. It could be taken as a “no-matter-what, we-are-doing-this” that again is not possible since rules and regulations span multiple departments, ministries, and jurisdictions, including international treaties, not to mention our own treaty obligations
How about tax incentives?
Tax incentives do work, but their impact is modest to moderate — not the miracle solution claimed by conservatives (or Liberals).
How about the government get out of the way?
Well, imagine removing all stop signs in the intersections.
Why do we so many that it is almost present in every intersection (that or the yield sign, and the yield sign is an example of leniency in laws).