Canada’s federal government disregards its own fiscal rules—unlike Sweden

During the 1970s and 1980s, Canada and Sweden both saw a deterioration in government finances. However, hard times in the early 1990s transformed the approach to fiscal policy by governments in both countries, including reducing spending and borrowing, and ultimately returning to balanced budgets. While Swedes have carried on the legacy of fiscal responsibility in subsequent decades, Canadians seem to have forgotten the hard lessons of recent history and have fallen back on the fiscal approach that got us into trouble in the first place.

In his recent book, Swedish economist Johan Norberg explains that for most of its modern history Sweden has been a testament to the success of the free market, rather than a model socialist economy. The country only experimented with socialism for a short period, with disastrous results.

Sweden’s socialist experiment during the 1970s and 1980s saw substantial income redistribution and the introduction of a large welfare state. As a result, the size of government doubled as a share of the economy (measured by GDP). Yet despite increases in taxes, particularly targeting corporations and the wealthy, the government could not raise the funds to pay for such a sizable expansion of the welfare state. Instead, Sweden ran deficits in every year from 1970 to 1987, government debt rose from less than 18 per cent of the economy (GDP) in 1970 to over 70 per cent in 1985, and the private sector completely stagnated.

This approach brought about a financial crisis in the early 1990s that saw interest rates briefly rise as high as 500 per cent. In the wake of this crisis, the Swedish government declared the socialist experiment a failure, and the country saw substantial reform that emphasized balanced budgets, lower taxes, and an open business environment. Rules were set in place to ensure fiscal discipline, and as a result the country has enjoyed consistent surpluses and government debt has fallen from 83.2 per cent of the economy in 1998 to 58.8 per cent in 2021, despite still maintaining a large welfare state.

During the 1970s and 1980s, Canada also experienced a deterioration in government finances. Canada’s issues stemmed from a substantial expansion in the size and role of government in conjunction with rising interest rates. The federal government ran uninterrupted budget deficits from 1970 through to the mid-1990s. Federal government debt rose to over 70 per cent of GDP during this period and debt interest costs were consuming more than one-third of federal government revenues.

By the early 1990s federal finances were in shambles and the economy was stagnant. A new federal government was elected, led by Jean Chrétien, which implemented significant fiscal reform in 1995 based on spending restraint, balanced budgets and lower taxes. The provinces enacted similar reforms, and from the late 1990s through the 2000s, Canadians enjoyed consistent surpluses, debt reduction, and strong economic growth.

While there are clear parallels between the countries, unlike Sweden, Canadians has since reverted back to the risky fiscal approach of the 1970s and 1980s. Since 2015, Canada has seen historically high federal spending, and a string of federal and provincial budget deficits. Consequently, government debt and its associated costs have grown substantially.

Since the 1990s, both Canada and Sweden have had fiscal rules in place to help ensure the health of government finances. But while the Swedish government has largely stuck to its surplus goal by being disciplined with finances, Canada’s current federal government has consistently disregarded its own commitments. Indeed, it has violated its own fiscal anchors several times since 2015, and rather than adopt the discipline necessary to get back on track, the government simply moves the goalposts.

Simply put, Swedes have learned their lesson from their experience in the 1970s to 1990s, whereas Canadians appear to have forgotten. This raises the question—do Swedes have better memories?

Authors:

Grady Munro and Jake Fuss

Related Topics:#CanadaEconomy #CanadaVSSweden #FraserInstitute #GradyMunro #JakeFuss #JohanNorberg #SwedenEconomy

Up Next

The Carbon Tax is part of a bigger plan to change the way you live

Don't Miss

Growing the government won’t help Canada’s economy

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Canadians experiencing second-longest and third steepest decline in living standards in last 40 years

Great Reset / 9 hours ago

Biden Administration Eager to Sign WHO Pandemic Treaty

Opinion / 10 hours ago

UK set to ban sex ed for young children amid parental backlash against LGBT indoctrination

Economy

Canadians experiencing second-longest and third steepest decline in living standards in last 40 years

Published on May 20, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

From 2019 to 2023, Canadian living standards declined—and as of the end of 2023, the decline had not yet ended, finds a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Despite claims to the contrary, living standards are declining in Canada,” said Grady Munro, policy analyst at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Changes in Per-Person GDP (Income): 1985 to 2023.

Specifically, from April 2019 to the end of 2023, inflation-adjusted per-person GDP, a broad measure of living standards, declined from $59,905 to $58,111 or by 3.0 per cent. This decline is exceeded only by the decline in 1989 to 1992 (-5.3 per cent) and 2008 to 2009 (-5.2 per cent). In other words, it’s the third-steepest decline in 40 years.

Moreover, the latest decline (which comprises 18 fiscal quarters) is already the second-longest in the last 40 years, surpassed only by the decline from 1989 to 1994 (which lasted 21 quarters). And if not stabilized in 2024, this decline could be the steepest and longest in four decades.

“The severity of the decline in living standards should be a wake-up call for policymakers across Canada to immediately enact fundamental policy reforms to help spur economic growth and productivity,” said Jason Clemens, study co-author and executive vice-president at the Fraser Institute.

Real GDP per person is a broad measure of incomes (and consequently living standards). This paper analyzes changes in quarterly per-person GDP, adjusted for inflation from 1985 through to the end of 2023, the most recent data available at the time of writing.
The study assesses the length (number of quarters) as well the percentage decline and the length of time required to recover the income lost during the decline.
Over the period covered (1985 to 2023), Canada experienced nine periods of decline and recovery in real GDP per person.
Of those nine periods, three (Q2 1989 to Q3 1994, Q3 2008 to Q4 2011, and Q2 2019 to Q2 2022) were most severe when comparing the length and depth of the declines along with number of quarters required for real GDP per person to recover.
The experience following Q2 2019 is unlike any decline and recovery since 1985 because, though per person GDP recovered for one quarter in Q2 2022, it immediately began declining again and by Q4 2023 remains below the level in Q2 2019.
This lack of meaningful recovery suggests that since mid-2019, Canada has experienced one of the longest and deepest declines in real GDP per person since 1985, exceeded only by the decline and recovery from Q2 1989 to Q3 1994.
If per-capita GDP does not recover in 2024, this period may be the longest and largest decline in per-person GDP over the last four decades.

Read the Full Report

Authors:

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

Milagros Palacios

Director, Addington Centre for Measurement, Fraser Institute

Automotive

Biden’s Climate Agenda Is Running Headfirst Into A Wall Of His Own Making

Published on May 20, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By WILL KESSLER

President Joe Biden’s administration unveiled tariffs this week aimed at boosting domestic production of green energy technology, but the move could end up hamstringing his larger climate goals.

The tariffs announced on Tuesday quadruple levies for Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) to 100% and raise rates for certain Chinese green energy and EV components like minerals and batteries. Biden has made the transition to green energy and EVs a key part of his climate agenda, but hiking tariffs on those products to help U.S. manufacturing could jack up prices on the already costly products, slowing adoption by struggling Americans, according to experts who spoke to the DCNF.

The risks posed by hiking levies on green technology expose the inherent tension between Biden’s climate agenda and his efforts to protect American industry, which often struggles to compete with cheap foreign labor. Items on his climate agenda typically raise costs, and requiring companies to comply could make them uncompetitive on the world stage.

“These tariffs are a classic example of the Biden administration’s left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing,” E.J. Antoni, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, told the DCNF. “The inability to import Chinese-made EVs due to prohibitively high costs will necessitate importing raw materials and parts for EVs from China. Since automakers can’t afford to build and assemble the vehicles here, prices will have to rise. In other words, American consumers will pay the cost of this tariff, not the Chinese.”

The White House, in its fact sheet, pointed to China artificially lowering its prices and dumping goods on the global market as the justification for the new tariffs in an effort to help protect American businesses. China has pumped huge subsidies into its own EV industry and supply lines over the past few years, spawning a European Union investigation into vehicles from the country.

“Tariffs on Chinese EVs won’t just make Chinese EVs more expensive, they will also make American EVs more expensive,” Ryan Young, senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the DCNF. “This is because domestic producers can now raise their prices without fear of being undercut by competitors. Good for them but bad for consumers — and for the Biden administration’s policy goal of increased EV adoption.”

Several American manufacturers are already struggling to sell EVs at a profit, with Ford losing $4.7 billion on its electric line in 2023 while selling over 72,000 of the vehicles. To ease price concerns and increase EV adoption, the Biden administration created an EV tax credit of $7,500 per vehicle, depending on where its parts are made.

The market share of EVs out of all vehicles fell in the first quarter of 2024 from 7.6% to 7.1% as consumers opted to buy cheaper traditional vehicles instead. Growth in EV sales increased by just 2.7% in the quarter, far slower than the 47% growth that the industry saw in all of 2023.

The Biden administration has also sought to use regulations to push automakers toward electrifying their offerings as consumers refuse to voluntarily adopt EVs, finalizing rules in March that effectively require around 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after 2032 to be electric or hybrids.

“By raising the price — and thereby stunting the deployment — of EVs, the tariffs undermine the Biden administration’s stated goals of reducing carbon emissions (as many U.S. environmentalists and EV fans have recently lamented),” Clark Packard, research fellow in the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, wrote following the announcement. “The EV tariffs (and also-announced solar tariffs) would continue the administration’s habit of choosing politics and protectionism over their environmental agenda.”

Despite the subsidies, the 25% tariff that is currently in place for Chinese EVs already prices the product out of the U.S. market, resulting in no Chinese-branded EVs being sold in the country, according to Barron’s. Only a handful of the more than 100 EV models being sold in China appeal to American consumers, and none of them can compete under current levies.

“Something like this happened just a few years ago when former president Donald Trump enacted 25% steel tariffs in 2018,” Young told the DCNF. “Domestic steel producers raised their prices by almost exactly the amount of the tariff, and America soon had the world’s highest steel prices. As a result, car prices went up by about $200 to $300 on average. Larger trucks with more steel content increased even more. Now Biden is going to do the same thing to EVs.”

I won’t allow American towns and workers to be hurt by China’s unfair trade practices that flood our markets with cheap products.

That’s what these new tariffs are all about. pic.twitter.com/GGApGqtg7O

— President Biden (@POTUS) May 15, 2024

In the year following the increase in steel tariffs under the Trump administration, U.S. Steel’s operating profit rose 38%, prices were hiked 5 to 10% and revenue was up 15% due to reduced competition, according to CNN.

Despite the massive tariff hike on EVs, Biden only raised the tariff rate on Chinese lithium-ion EV batteries and battery parts to 25%, according to the White House. The tariff rate on certain essential minerals, like natural graphite, was also hiked to just 25%.

“Despite rapid and recent progress in U.S. onshoring, China currently controls over 80% of certain segments of the EV battery supply chain, particularly upstream nodes such as critical minerals mining, processing, and refining,” the White House wrote in its fact sheet. “Concentration of critical minerals mining and refining capacity in China leaves our supply chains vulnerable and our national security and clean energy goals at risk.”

China has broad control over the majority of minerals necessary to construct EVs, possessing nearly 90% of the world’s mineral refining capacity. Sources of the required minerals often also have serious human rights concerns, such as the world’s supply of cobalt, which has widespread ties to child labor.

Biden attacked former President Donald Trump during the 2020 election for the broad tariffs that he put on Chinese goods, noting that “any freshman econ student” could point out that the costs of the tariffs would be passed on to American consumers.

EV makers have increasingly struggled over the past year to maintain profits amid stalling demand, with the largest American EV manufacturer, Tesla, reporting a 10% drop in year-over-year revenue in the first quarter of 2024. Tesla is one of several EV makers that have announced layoffs in recent months.

“Fortunately, the EV market is still small in the U.S. and Chinese EVs are an even smaller slice of that small pie,” Antoni told the DCNF. “Even if the EV market in the U.S. were large, these tariffs would not help the domestic EV industry. While consumer demand for EVs would shift to domestic models, an increase in domestic production would rely on very expensive inputs from China, cutting into profits.”

The White House did not respond to a request to comment from the DCNF.