Why I’m Voting Green (and you should too)

Green Party of Canada logo

Last week, thanks to the efforts of office-mate Peter Rukavina, I had an unfortunately extraordinary opportunity. Each of the four candidates in our riding in the upcoming Canadian federal election was invited to come to our office and spend an hour with us. It was part job-interview, part debate, and part social chatting.

After meeting each of the candidates, I feel more informed about their personalities, but I can’t say my views on any of the parties has significantly changed.

The first canadiate to come in was Will MacFadden from the Green Party of Canada. Of all of the parties, the Green Party platform best represents my views. As I’ve written about before, the Green Party supports, endorses, and uses open source software. In meeting Will MacFadden, I really only wanted to confirm that he wasn’t a lunatic. I can now declare with confidence that he is not a lunatic.

All of the other candidates were quite positive about the Green Party and about Will MacFadden himself. Despite a few mentions of “strategic voting”, which I find a turn-off, I was left with the odd feeling that everyone generally agrees with the Green party platform, but the other parties don’t see it as realistic.

An example of the important, but difficult positions of the Green Party is their proposed gas tax: “Increase fuel taxes by ten cents (to be phased in over three years)”. The other candidates scoffed at this idea because it would obviously be unpopular – especially given the “high” fuel prices in the past month.

However, several of us that met with the candidates agree that an extra ten cents is the least we should pay. Yes, fuel is more expensive now that it has been, but it is still ridiculously cheap given the environmental, social, and political costs that aren’t being reflected in the prices as gas stations.

That the main party candidates thought such a proposed gas tax was laughable (they didn’t say this – but I’m guessing this by the fact that several of them actually laughed) makes me all the more determined to vote in favour of such a platform.

Also, after meeting the candidates, I have found that the term “progressive” has been completely robbed of all meaning.

 

17 thoughts on “Why I’m Voting Green (and you should too)

  1. I think the problem right now is that, if the polls and the overall mood are to be believed, we may very well end up with a Conservative government. I do believe that the Liberals under Chretien were sloppy and arrogant, but I think the possibility of a Conservative (read: Reform) government sends chills down my spine. If they get elected, I really think we will be, for lack of a better word, screwed.

    I would love to see ideals like what the NDP and the Green Party endorse in power, but the realities of the system right now point to the fact that voting for either of those parties could very well mean a similar situation to what’s happened in the US with Nader. As much as it is distasteful, I would rather live under a Liberal government (even in a minority situation, as fragile as that is) than under a Conservative government any day.

  2. I also live in fear of the reform coming to power, but I don’t see it happening. I would imagine many progressive conservatives would vote liberal, as Martin is a very conservative liberal, and the party they would normally vote for seems to have been over run by the fringe. I think this will be an interesting election. I was planning on voting NDP, but I will pay more attention to the Green party now as well.

  3. Neil, I totally understand that line of thinking, but I just can’t endorse strategic voting. It seems to be to undermine the democratic and voting process by forcing people to vote for a party that they don’t necessarily support.

    I can understand the pragmatic reasoning, but I’m still voting green.

  4. Go Green, Steven, and feel good about it.

    I am leaning that way again for the third or fourth vote now. Your observation on the laughing is telling – there is a small window of political imagination in most parties and the Greens are going elsewhere. I was worried about the fiscal theory when I first read they considered themselves fiscal conservatives but after a decade of Tories in Ottawa which ran up a 300 billion deficit followed by the Liberal ineptitude as we are all learning about (and yet again a promise for child care), who could you choose from for that “strategic” vote anyway?

    If they get one or two seats out of BC (where they have 13% in the polls), I can at least listen to them in commons debate and know better for next time when they might get 15 seats whether or not they truly represent my beliefs most closely. Time for another voice in the House.

  5. Hey Steve, did the green party folks give any indication of what their platform would cost? Most of the other parties have given at least a preliminary estimate this week but I don’t see any mention in the news section.

  6. The current issue of Wired magazine has an interesting interview with Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician working on global and environmental problems. The interview lists the 10 most pressing problems in the world today: climate change, disease, war, education, financial instability, corruption, hunger, population, water, and trade.

    Of these, I have heard politicians in the runup to the Canadian election speak cogently to perhaps two: education and financial instability. Corruption, one of the most evident issues in the Canadian political landscape a few months ago, seems to have faded. Paul Martin says it will take a long time to unearth the details of the sponosroship scandal, and we believe him. Good Canadians.

    It seems pretty damning to me that the most important issues in the world today are not a significant part of the platform of political parties in Canada. But there is at least one party for whom such issues are foundational: the Green Party.

  7. I had to laugh at one comment in particular in this piece, “other candidates scoffed at this idea because it would obviously be unpopular”

    Really? Could it possibly be that anyone with an ounce of economic knowledge can figure out why it’s a bad idea to raise the gas tax 10c? (For the average green party voter let me note a few; gas taxes are regessive, hurt lower incomes first, cause all prices to rise as transport cost are tranferred to the consumer, etc).

    Get some sense, the Greens, much like the NDP anytime they’ve formed a provincial gov’t, would be a complete disaster for the country. Thank God that will never happen.

  8. The Green Party’s open source platform is great, and they have a lot of other good ideas that impress me. The Green Party is probably better than any of the big four parties right now.

    If you’re concerned about open source software, fiscal reform, and freedom in general, and there’s a Libertarian candidate in your riding, I encourage you to check him/her out as well. Libertarians also have strong environmental ideals, based on the belief that public lands and the environment belong to the people (not the gov’t), and pollution is a form of property damage.

    Strategic voting is pointless; you’ll just end up with the same two parties for another century. I already realize my one vote is practically worthless, so I might as well “throw it away” for something I believe in. Do the right thing, even if you don’t think it’ll make a difference.

    Shameless plug: a good friend of mine, Jeff Paetkau, who is active in the Gentoo community, is running for the Libertarians in Prince George-Cariboo (BC). http://www.timeforless.ca

  9. On the face of it, based on the platform alone, I agree that the Green Party is appealing. Based on the economics (and I’m no right-wing economist!) though, I cannot support the Greens — not because their platform isn’t necessarily ‘do-able’ with a few tweaks, but because their platform is not costed-out in any meaningful way. I undestand that this might be because they lack the resources to employ enough (any?) staff economists, but still. We have absolutely no way of knowing how their platform would play our in real life, and that’s unacceptable (not that we are really talking about forming a government, though, so this criticism might be ignored for now).

    For now, it’s NDP for me. If our Greens bore a closer resemblance to the various other green parties around the world (i.e. progressive in terms of economic and social policy, not just environmental policy) then they’d be much more likely to have my support. I just can’t bring myself to get excited about a one-issue party with a red-tory leader, and my impression of many of the true-blue green (wow, that’s akward) supporters and candidates I know or have met is that they’re enthused for a vision of what the Green party might or ought to be, not what it is today.

    Curiously, while a lot of Green support comes from environmentalists, the NDPs platform has garnered more praise in this area (from both Greenpeace and the Sierra Club of Canada).

  10. I just happened to come here as it caught my eye.
    I find it partially amusing and mostly ignorant for people to support the NDP or green party. I wonder, how does taxing people in the end make them wealthier? A communist utopia would be wonderful, but in fact someone at the top has greed, as we all do, and this is why socialism has never worked. Take a look at the NDP provinces in Canada. Every single one has huge problems- high taxes drive people away; leaving the poor to pay extremely high taxes while the gov’t lines there pockets.
    Note. Take a economic class….. it will do wonders

  11. the green party is a bunch of hippis they don’t evan have a chance in the election so they should just drop out of the race like come on they need to realize that not every country in the world is going to get along with each other and not everything can be talked out some times things have to be solved with violence so they need to take another look at thier own views before they trie to preach it to me

  12. “Take an economics class” funny. Its is obvious that Mike never has.

    According to economics taxes make people wealthier in four ways:

    1) Because they provide services that would other bear higher costs, for example: Canadians pay far less per capita for Health Care via taxation than Americans via private insurance. Public Roads are much cheaper than Toll Roads, Public Transit is cheaper than Private Livery, The Police and the Army are cheaper than Private Security, etc. The Dutch Economist J. Penn said that if you calculate it, you will find that no other expenditure on which you spend your money will come close to matching the value you get for your taxes.

    2) Because they are progressive (in the case of income taxes) they shift the burden of paying for social services towards the wealthier taxpayers, while the resulting social benefits are equal, therefore making the less wealthy relatively wealthier. So unless you are in the highest taxbrackets you get a particularly good deal from your taxes.

    3) Because the government has a much lower capitalization cost than any private borrower, the costs of stabilizing the prices and benefits of public services across the ups and downs of the business cycle is much lower that it is for private insurers or consumers. Also, the Government has a much wider base of diffusion than private insurer, again lowering volatility and thus costs.

    4) Because most of the money from taxation results in expenditures, not profits, it contributes more directly to the National Income and thereby makes everyone wealthier, not only by the amount of the money spent, but a much larger amount governed by what Economists call ‘The Multiplier.’ This effect in particular is used by Governments to stabilize the economic impact of the business cycle through a strategy called ‘Functional Finance.’

    It’s unfortunate that Tax reactionaries like Mike have never taken an economics class and so easily fall in to the neoconservative propaganda and think that it is the Taxes, rather than the Corporations and other institutions of the financial elite that are robbing them.

    Taxes do make people wealthier, this is why the neocons hate them, poorer, hungrier people are easier to exploit.

    Economists, outside of the paid shills that work at neocon ‘think tanks’ are not Conservatives, they are Liberals. That is why socialists are always railing against the ‘neoliberals’, because they believe the market should be controlled an not ‘Liberalized.’ Conservatives also do not believe that the Market should be Liberal, that it should be controlled, they only differ on who should be beneficiaries of this control, the Socialists say is should be Social Programs like Social Housing, the Conservatives prefer Private Organizations like Haliberton.

    By and large, Economists agree with neither side. They would like Government to not directly control the market, but rather rather participate in and encourage the market, via premarket strategies such as ‘capacity building’; Education, Infrastructure, etc, postmarket strategies like Social and Health insurance systems and direct market participation via Functional Finance and Monetary policy.

    While economists vary greatly on how taxes should be implemented, wether certain taxes are too high or too low, wether the tax strategy should focus on profits or income, etc, you will not find a credible economist anywhere who would not agree that Taxes, when well implemented, along with the Government expenditures they fund, DO contribute the the wealth of the nation and all of its residents.

    I hope this helps.

  13. Dmytri, I’m obviously not going to change your mind, but for the benefit of other Canadian voters here, I’m going to rebut your points.

    1. “Because they provide services that would other bear higher costs”
    You mean it magically takes fewer resources to build a road when it’s tax-funded? Of course not; what you mean is that the cost is spread around so it’s harder to see. In reality, the road (hospital, army) costs more because bureaucrats and politician are not responsible for the economic outcome. There’s no incentive to be resourceful and efficient.

    2. “Because [taxes] are progressive…” Except that progressive tax is a disincentive to be productive. I try and keep my annual income under $25000 so I pay little or no tax. I’m encouraged by the gov’t to waste money (“business expenses”) and be unproductive. The smart wealthy people, like Paul Martin, keep their assets in low-tax countries anyway.

    3. “Because the government has a much lower capitalization cost…” Yes, they have the ability to borrow (steal) from our children and grandchildren through deficits, unlike the private sector.

    4. “Because most of the money from taxation results in expenditures, not profits” Here’s a free clue: those “profits” you hate so much get reinvested efficiently in the economy, creating jobs and wealth.

    “Taxes, rather than the Corporations and other institutions of the financial elite … are robbing them.” As far as I know, it’s the tax-man who takes my money at gunpoint, while corporations merely engage in voluntary transactions with me. Look up the definition of “rob” sometime.

    “you will not find a credible economist anywhere who would not agree that Taxes… DO contribute the the wealth of the nation and all of its residents.” Look up Ludwig von Mises sometime. The entire Austrian School of economics thinks taxes are a bad idea.

    Paul

  14. “4.”

    Are you nuts? Do you honestly believe that private-sector entities don’t run deficits?

    In the private sector, numbers are reported in terms of Capital and Operating expenditures. Almost all healthy businesses run a deficit in their Capital accounts (’cause if you don’t invest in capital today you’ll be out of business tomorrow) and surplus (hopefully) in terms of Operating expenditures. When the two are combined, many businesses continually run deficits.

    Government numbers are always lumped together as one. They shouldn’t be, but there you go.

  15. Cool. Thanks to the Acts of Volition User Comments RSS I noticed these responses long after I had stopped checking back, neat.

    Regarding the rebuttles:

    > > 1. “Because they provide services that would other bear higher costs”

    > You mean it magically takes fewer resources to build a road when it’s > tax-funded?

    The point is not that it takes fewer resources, but rather that you get benefits from taxes, just like any other expenditure, and the expenditure should be examined, like any other, by cost/benefit, whereass the comment I was responding too seemed to claim that all taxes where bad, in his line of thinking, all expenditures are bad, but this ignores the fact that money has no value except for the benefits it brings, taxes should be judged as all other expenditures are.

    And there are cost savings, It is not magic at all, the Government has much lower capitalization costs than private borrowers and Capitalizations costs make up a significant part of Capital Works, like road building, and the fact that the cost is //spread around more// is also a cost savings. Just like you can by a dozen donuts cheaper than 12 times than individual price, you can buy a nations worth of roads cheaper than a million toll-collecting private projects.

    The incentive argument is not relevant here, the question was only “How do taxes make us richer,” so I will avoid it for now, since it’s a moralistic argument.

    You say that “In reality, the road (hospital, army) costs more,” (when the government provides it. But this is simply not true. Americans have the most expensive health care system in the world, run by private insurers, yet their health statistics are staggeringly bad.

    > > 2. “Because [taxes] are progressive…”

    Except that progressive tax is a disincentive to be productive.

    Once again this is a moralistic argument, and once again, an incorrect one since this ‘disincentive’ has never been measured or proved. In anycase the fact remains that progessive taxes make the less wealth relatively more wealthy, which is all the point is about.

    > > 3. “Because the government has a much lower capitalization cost…”

    > Yes, they have the ability to borrow (steal) from our children and > grandchildren through deficits, unlike the private sector.

    I have no idea what this means, please explained how children receiving benefits from taxation are ‘stolen’ form but people receiving benefits from private expenditure (even when the benefits are smaller relative to the price) are not.

    > > 4. “Because most of the money from taxation results in expenditures, not profits”

    > Here’s a free clue: those “profits” you hate so much get reinvested efficiently in the economy, creating jobs and wealth.

    Thanks for the “clue” (sheesh), first off you mean ‘savings’ not ‘profits’ since the Capital Market does not differentiate between savings derived from incomes (wages) or from profits, the most important aspect of savings in regards to investment is “abstinence from consumption” because the factors of production are rivalrous, it is not as simple as you are presenting it to be. The ‘money part’, as in //the actual money not spent// is irrelevant since the banks lend out many times more money that is actually saved in theire vaults, only the income effect is relevant to the discusion here (how do taxes make us wealthier). The income effect of government expenditures is clearly higher than that of profits. Since profits first have to become savings and then have to encourage a bank to lend more and then this new money must finaly become expenditures (as opposed to becoming ‘trapped’ in the Capital Market), there is loss at every step due to liquidity preferences (“bears”). Government Expenditures are already expenditures, and all Income is Expenditure (Y=E).

    > Look up Ludwig von Mises sometime. The entire Austrian School of
    > economics thinks taxes are a bad idea.

    Again with the weird posturing (Look up…) but in anycase, any who do bother to look up these economists, will note that they too would agree that some taxes are beneficial, they just place the ‘proper’ amount lower than say, the neokeynesian economists. von Mises supported taxfunded armies for instance, and even conscription!

    As for ‘Corporations not putting a gun to your head’ any organization which believes you are withholding payment from it will ‘put a gun to your head’, wether it is for Taxes, Rents or Tolls.

  16. Voting is good thing to do anyways. I just don’t know who to vote for as of now. I am happy that my vote will at least pay a buck for the party to get ahead.

Comments are closed.