I'm all for government intervention in the economy. It actually makes sense from time to time. But I don't understand why we were throwing so much money at projects that won't ever generate income and taxes in the future or even solve a serious social problem.
The Harper government was so concerned about getting money out the door that I don't think it understood that all it was doing was buying truckloads of cement. Lots of roads, schools and other publicly owned properties are getting fixed - but when the work is done - what next?
The people involved in those projects will be out of work again, AND those projects won't create new employment. Sure those people got pay cheques that will flow back into the economy. But those aren't sustainable pay cheques.
If all our greatest thinkers are saying that we are moving into a knowledge based economy that is reliant on innovation, green energy and international trade - why weren't we investing in that?
- Why weren't we sending people back to school to upgrade their skills?
- Why weren't we spending money on R&D?
- Why aren't we funding something more sustainable than the Tar Sands?
- Why aren't we funding more trade missions so we aren't totally reliant on the U.S. and increasingly China for our future well being?
Spending money on repairing roads doesn't have the same economic impact as spending money on R&D that will create more than enough economic acitivity that would generate taxes to pay for road repair.
Magna used this opportunity to acquire assets and contracts that will significantly increase its profits as the auto industry recovers.
We should have used this opportunity to complete the re-jigging of our economy of simplying producing raw materials for others - to innovation in manufacturing, IT, health services and finance that would generate jobs that would pay for the infrastructure.
