More government interventions hamper capitalism

In his fourth book, What Went Wrong With Capitalism, investor and author Ruchir Sharma eloquently details how advanced market economies for decades have increasingly strayed from the basic principles of market-based competition and pricing, resulting in persistently slow growth which causes many to question whether capitalism works anymore. However, what is often attributed to market failure is often a failure of government.

Collectivists have successfully installed the narrative that the Reagan and Thatcher era in the 1980s ushered in an era of neoliberalism and government austerity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Keynesian counter-cyclical government spending was supposed to support the economy during a recession; instead, it is used to support the economy at every point of the business cycle. At most, the Reagan and Thatcher regimes only slowed the rate of increase of government spending. Combined with a growing public resistance to paying higher taxes, this created permanent budget deficits. Policymakers remain stuck on the stimulus treadmill: former European Central Bank head Mario Draghi recently recommended the EU spend an inconceivable US$900 billion a year to revive its flagging economy.

Moreover, the slowdown in the growth of government spending did little to stop a tidal wave of government rules and regulations, many of which favour entrenched interests and firms. Sharma’s observation that being “pro-business is not the same as pro-capitalism, and the distinction continues to elude us” is especially true for Canada. He documents the increasing use of government subsidies and bail-outs, which helps fuel the growth of so-called zombie firms—unprofitable companies that stay in business thanks to support from governments or lending institutions (who know problems caused by bad loans will be bailed out by government), which prevent labour and capital from moving to areas with better long-term growth potential. Most recently, we have seen governments embrace higher tariffs and industrial policy, notably for green energy projects in Canada and the United States.

Increased government meddling in the marketplace reduces competition and slows the process of creative destruction that is the lifeblood of capitalism by allowing “new firms to rise up and destroy the complacent ones, making the economy ever more productive over time,” according to Sharma. This was most evident during the pandemic, when business failures declined as government hand-outs outweighed the impact of unprecedented shutdown of large parts of the economy. But the decline in business startups and failures has persisted for decades.

Steadily rising government intervention in the economy results in lower productivity and slower growth. This pushes policymakers to resort to higher fiscal deficits and easy money policies in a forlorn attempt to boost long-term potential growth.

It is often said that the recent slowdown of productivity reflects a lack of business investment. That is certainly part of the problem outside of the U.S., especially for Canada over the past decade. However, Sharma notes it is the efficiency and not just the level of investment that is the problem. Pervasive government interventions in the economy distort prices and the allocation of capital, resulting in what the libertarian economist Friedrich Hayek called “malinvestments.” This is especially true for Canada, which for over a decade has shunned clearly profitable investment opportunities in the resource sector while pouring tens of billions into expensive public transit systems, which nevertheless failed to persuade commuters to leave their vehicles at home.

One theme Sharma does not develop is that this growing inability of governments to efficiently deliver results is not due to a lack of resources. Governments have expanded their workforce, their spending, and their regulatory power. Nevertheless, government programs falter because of bad management, chronic political meddling for short-term electoral gains, and a workforce which increasingly serves its own interests and not public’s.

Sharma concludes on both an optimistic and pessimistic note. He examines the ability of capitalism to thrive in countries such as Switzerland and Taiwan by balancing “a business-friendly environment alongside social equality.” Nevertheless, he’s concerned with the “supreme irony: modern voters, particularly the young, now demand that leaders show respect for the fragility of natural ecosystems… [but] at the same time, leaders are riding a popular wave when they propose to intervene in the economy—the global ecosystem in which 8 billion people do business.”

As disillusionment with capitalism spreads due to slow growth, the temptation is to increase government interventions, which only worse the economic outcome.

Author:

Philip Cross

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Up Next

An exclusive interview with a Haitian immigrant from Charleroi, Pennsylvania

Don't Miss

In Charleroi, Pennsylvania, the local population grapples with a surge of Haitian migrants.

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

Temporary Alberta grid limit unlikely to dampen data centre investment, analyst says

COVID-19 / 48 mins ago

Trump DOJ dismisses charges against doctor who issued fake COVID passports

Business / 1 hour ago

Mark Carney’s Fiscal Fantasy Will Bankrupt Canada

Business

Mark Carney’s Fiscal Fantasy Will Bankrupt Canada

Published on July 14, 2025

Todayville

By Gwyn Morgan

Mark Carney was supposed to be the adult in the room. After nearly a decade of runaway spending under Justin Trudeau, the former central banker was presented to Canadians as a steady hand – someone who could responsibly manage the economy and restore fiscal discipline.

Instead, Carney has taken Trudeau’s recklessness and dialled it up. His government’s recently released spending plan shows an increase of 8.5 percent this fiscal year to $437.8 billion. Add in “non-budgetary spending” such as EI payouts, plus at least $49 billion just to service the burgeoning national debt and total spending in Carney’s first year in office will hit $554.5 billion.

Even if tax revenues were to remain level with last year – and they almost certainly won’t given the tariff wars ravaging Canadian industry – we are hurtling toward a deficit that could easily exceed 3 percent of GDP, and thus dwarf our meagre annual economic growth. It will only get worse. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates debt interest alone will consume $70 billion annually by 2029. Fitch Ratings recently warned of Canada’s “rapid and steep fiscal deterioration”, noting that if the Liberal program is implemented total federal, provincial and local debt would rise to 90 percent of GDP.

This was already a fiscal powder keg. But then Carney casually tossed in a lit match. At June’s NATO summit, he pledged to raise defence spending to 2 percent of GDP this fiscal year – to roughly $62 billion. Days later, he stunned even his own caucus by promising to match NATO’s new 5 percent target. If he and his Liberal colleagues follow through, Canada’s defence spending will balloon to the current annual equivalent of $155 billion per year. There is no plan to pay for this. It will all go on the national credit card.

This is not “responsible government.” It is economic madness.

And it’s happening amid broader economic decline. Business investment per worker – a key driver of productivity and living standards – has been shrinking since 2015. The C.D. Howe Institute warns that Canadian workers are increasingly “underequipped compared to their peers abroad,” making us less competitive and less prosperous.

The problem isn’t a lack of money; it’s a lack of discipline and vision. We’ve created a business climate that punishes investment: high taxes, sluggish regulatory processes, and politically motivated uncertainty. Carney has done nothing to reverse this. If anything, he’s making the situation worse.

Recall the 2008 global financial meltdown. Carney loves to highlight his role as Bank of Canada Governor during that time but the true credit for steering the country through the crisis belongs to then-prime minister Stephen Harper and his finance minister, Jim Flaherty. Facing the pressures of a minority Parliament, they made the tough decisions that safeguarded Canada’s fiscal foundation. Their disciplined governance is something Carney would do well to emulate.

Instead, he’s tearing down that legacy. His recent $4.3 billion aid pledge to Ukraine, made without parliamentary approval, exemplifies his careless approach. And his self-proclaimed image as the experienced technocrat who could go eyeball-to-eyeball against Trump is starting to crack. Instead of respecting Carney, Trump is almost toying with him, announcing in June, for example that the U.S. would pull out of the much-ballyhooed bilateral trade talks launched at the G7 Summit less than two weeks earlier.

Ordinary Canadians will foot the bill for Carney’s fiscal mess. The dollar has weakened. Young Canadians – already priced out of the housing market – will inherit a mountain of debt. This is not stewardship. It’s generational theft.

Some still believe Carney will pivot – that he will eventually govern sensibly. But nothing in his actions supports that hope. A leader serious about economic renewal would cancel wasteful Trudeau-era programs, streamline approvals for energy and resource projects, and offer incentives for capital investment. Instead, we’re getting more borrowing and ideological showmanship.

It’s no longer credible to say Carney is better than Trudeau. He’s worse. Trudeau at least pretended deficits were temporary. Carney has made them permanent – and more dangerous.

This is a betrayal of the fiscal stability Canadians were promised. If we care about our credit rating, our standard of living, or the future we are leaving our children, we must change course.

That begins by removing a government unwilling – or unable – to do the job.

Canada once set an economic example for others. Those days are gone. The warning signs – soaring debt, declining productivity, and diminished global standing – are everywhere. Carney’s defenders may still hope he can grow into the job. Canada cannot afford to wait and find out.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who was a director of five global corporations.

Business

Carney Liberals quietly award Pfizer, Moderna nearly $400 million for new COVID shot contracts

Published on July 14, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Carney’s Liberal government signed nearly $400 million in contracts with Pfizer and Moderna for COVID shots, despite halted booster programs and ongoing delays in compensating Canadians for jab injuries.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has awarded Pfizer and Moderna nearly $400 million in new COVID shot contracts.

On June 30th, the Liberal government quietly signed nearly $400 million contracts with vaccine companies Pfizer and Moderna for COVID jabs, despite thousands of Canadians waiting to receive compensation for COVID shot injuries.

The contracts, published on the Government of Canada website, run from June 30, 2025, until March 31, 2026. Under the contracts, taxpayers must pay $199,907,418.00 to both companies for their COVID shots.

Notably, there have been no press releases regarding the contracts on the Government of Canada website nor from Carney’s official office.

Additionally, the contracts were signed after most Canadians provinces halted their COVID booster shot programs. At the same time, many Canadians are still waiting to receive compensation from COVID shot injuries.

Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) was launched in December 2020 after the Canadian government gave vaccine makers a shield from liability regarding COVID-19 jab-related injuries.

There has been a total of 3,317 claims received, of which only 234 have received payments. In December, the Canadian Department of Health warned that COVID shot injury payouts will exceed the $75 million budget.

The December memo is the last public update that Canadians have received regarding the cost of the program. However, private investigations have revealed that much of the funding is going in the pockets of administrators, not injured Canadians.

A July report by Global News discovered that Oxaro Inc., the consulting company overseeing the VISP, has received $50.6 million. Of that fund, $33.7 million has been spent on administrative costs, compared to only $16.9 million going to vaccine injured Canadians.

The PHAC’s downplaying of jab injuries is of little surprise to Canadians, as a 2023 secret memo revealed that the federal government purposefully hid adverse effect so as not to alarm Canadians.

The secret memo from former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Privy Council Office noted that COVID jab injuries and even deaths “have the potential to shake public confidence.”

“Adverse effects following immunization, news reports and the government’s response to them have the potential to shake public confidence in the COVID-19 vaccination rollout,” read a part of the memo titled “Testing Behaviourally Informed Messaging in Response to Severe Adverse Events Following Immunization.”

Instead of alerting the public, the secret memo suggested developing “winning communication strategies” to ensure the public did not lose confidence in the experimental injections.

Since the start of the COVID crisis, official data shows that the virus has been listed as the cause of death for less than 20 children in Canada under age 15. This is out of six million children in the age group.

The COVID jabs approved in Canada have also been associated with severe side effects, such as blood clots, rashes, miscarriages, and even heart attacks in young, healthy men.

Additionally, a recent study done by researchers with Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest showed that 17 countries have found a “definite causal link” between peaks in all-cause mortality and the fast rollouts of the COVID shots, as well as boosters.

Interestingly, while the Department of Health has spent $16 million on injury payouts, the Liberal government spent $54 million COVID propaganda promoting the shot to young Canadians.

The Public Health Agency of Canada especially targeted young Canadians ages 18-24 because they “may play down the seriousness of the situation.”