Stimulating Conversation

The Mark contributors debate whether Canada's Economic Action Plan is really achieving its goals.

"Give me a one-handed economist!" Harry S. Truman famously cried, complaining that his financial advisors would all say, "On the one hand. . . on the other. . . "

It's been more than 50 years since Truman's call for an amputated advisor, but the plurality of economic ideas and ideologies still persists. Take for example the explanations for Canada's recent economic recovery.

On the one hand, Vancouver-based think tank, the Frasier Institute, recently released a study stating that Canada's recovery has been driven by the private sector, and that the government's $47 billion Economic Action Plan has done little to nothing to stimulate the economy.

On the other hand, the Conference Board of Canada believes that the government's infrastructure spending has provided the biggest bang for the buck.

So with economists on both sides using data to bolster their studies, how do we navigate the findings?

On this episode, host Chris Mitchell talks with Niels Veldhuis, senior economist at the Fraser Institute, about why the Harper government shouldn't be taking credit for the market's turnaround.

Liberal finance critic John McCallum, talks about what the government's role should be in a post-crash society.

Ecological economist William Rees, on how the costs of a growing economy could outweigh the benefits.

And UBC professor Angela Redish explains how economics and economists have changed since the crisis struck.

(Run-time: 29 minutes.)

Subscribe to The Mark Podcasts on iTunes