Peter Victor
In the years leading up to the present economic collapse, economist Peter Schiff made numerous appearances on American news networks foretelling the coming maelstrom with uncomfortable accuracy. His prescience was
roundly rewarded with mockery, not just from the other guests but also from the network hosts themselves. (Torontoist can't help but feel a certain amount of empathy with Schiff. In last year's Heroes and Villains,
we wrote that "the subprime mortgage crisis, which began late last year but really picked up steam in the last few months, is not going away. In fact, it is a trigger incident that will continue to unravel the American economy into 2008, almost certainly leading to a recession and likely a depression." That entry, for what it's worth,
received only 1.1% of the villain votes. It's fine. We're over it.)
Now that some of the worst-case economic predictions are playing out, smugly saying "I told you so"—while satisfying—isn't particularly helpful. Many of the economic myths we've grown up with are being systematically dispelled, so simply rebuilding the economy as it was before this collapse is inadequate. Instead, we must re-imagine how our economy functions and what we expect it to do for us.
Enter Peter Victor, an economist at York University. For the last several years, Victor has been pursuing, in his words, "a topic which is anathema to most members" of his profession. Specifically, the idea that "people in rich countries can and should manage without economic growth," not just because "it is implausible that the biosphere can support the nine billion people...who are expected to be on the Earth by mid-century at a standard of living remotely like that of current day North Americans," and not just so that "people living in poorer countries can enjoy the benefits of economic growth where it really makes a difference," but because "there is plenty of evidence to show that economic growth is doing very little to increase the happiness of most of us in rich countries."
Victor's timely new book
Managing Without Growth: Slower by Design, Not Disaster argues that government should shift its focus away from economic growth as its pre-eminent policy objective towards more effective measures of well being, and offers specific ideas on how to get there within a Canadian context.
Like Peter Schiff, Peter Victor will likely face strong opposition from some. Proposing to overhaul some of our most basic assumptions about how economies should function is no easy task. But that's part of what makes it courageous, and perhaps just a little bit heroic.
BY CHRIS TINDAL; PHOTO COURTESY OF PETER VICTOR
Is it any surprise that Jack Layton is a Torontoist "hero"?
In one you refer to Stephane Dion as a joke, then another as a hero. I don't think he is either, but he's the single reason Harper got cockier and more reckless. As for the Clarity Act, big deal - Harper was as much an architect as he was.
High gas prices may be heroic for the environment, but that's all wiped out but the current sub 70 cent levels isn't it?
I like the choice of Bikes and Social Media.
PickleToes, is it any surprise you were the first to comment on this post?
Gauldar: A little, but I knew that you and rek were really the only other contenders.
"...all of this and more was just proof that we can be a very, very stupid country when we want to be. Remember, Dion pretty much wrote the Clarity Act all by himself, which put the sovereignty movement in Quebec to bed for a decade until Stephen Harper decided to open his stupid mouth earlier this year."
YES! Just wish the mainstream media in this country agreed. They really did their best to regurgitate all of Harpers' talking points about the 'weak leadership' of Dion and, sadly, Canadians bought it.
I have feeling the media's tune will change with the new appointed Liberal leader. He's pro-Bush Doctrine, pro-torture and has spent the last 30 years outside of this country but our press will conveniently ignore those facts.
Speaking of facts, here's the opposite of one: "As for the Clarity Act, big deal - Harper was as much an architect as he was."
Dion was both a hero and a villain. It was contingent on him, as leader, to get his message across. He failed miserably at every turn. He's a good parliamentarian and a worthless leader. The Green Shift is great policy, it's unfortunate that he didn't step aside to let a more competent leader sell it.
Ironic that a guy who wrote something called the Clarity Act would be such an incomprehensible communicator. His awful leadership resulted in the greater success of both Harper and Layton, as the Liberal's bled support on both sides. That'll end with Ignatieff, Harper will be pushed to the right and Layton can return to being an irrelevant shouty fringe element.
Thanks for the love, Torontoist :) Newmindspace loves you too.
From Harper's wikipedia entry:
In late 1999, Harper called for the federal government to establish clear rules for any future Quebec referendum on sovereignty.[35] Some have identified Harper's views as an influence on the Chrétien government's Clarity Act.
Public Space Zealots
The radicals responsible for the decline of individual property rights. Yeah, they sound like heroes to me....
How about activists obsessed with creating communism through fascist methods?
Does anyone know about a greasemonkey application that can block comments from trolls? Killfile only works for LJ.
(No, I'm serious.)
@garden_hoe21: This past summer, someone wrote a Greasemonkey script specifically for banning Torontoist commenters of your choice.
*gasp* That's amazing! Thank you!!
David: Haha wow. I'm a preset too!
*kisses you*
Did Svend just cite conjecture on wikipedia in order to prove his point?
Union: If I wasn't so confident about the quality of his character, I'd conjecture that he edited the wikipedia article and added in that paragraph.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/352/Private/C-341/C-341_1/C-341_1.pdf
This is the Quebec Contingency Act that Harper put forward in 1996 as a private member's bill, a precursor to the similar Clarity Act that Dion produced.
1996...hmmmm. Was that 'Quebec Is A Nation Harper'? Or 'Erect a Firewall Around Alberta Harper'?'Elect the Senate Harper'? Wait it was 'The Government needs the support of the House Harper'!
Dion and Chretien, two Québécois, got their ideas for dealing with Quebec sovereignists from the leader of a western protest party. Got it.
Yes, people can agree on one thing while disagreeing on several others.
Dion, Chretien, Harper all supported the Clarity Act - they share a strong stance in dealing with Quebec separatists just as Trudeau did before them. Did you even read Harper's bill?
I strongly disagree with your choice of East Toronto Community Coalition as a hero. They don't represent the interests of the community as a whole, just the interests of a narrow(minded) subset, as shown here and here.
totally agree. But this is Torontoist we're talking about so you come to expect it after a while.