Category Archives: Économie

Le libre-échange, svp

posted by: Jean Gagnier on

C’est pas un secret, j’aime le libre-échange. Le nationalisme, pas vraiment. Le nationalisme économique, encore moins. Je me réjouis évidemment de la récente entente de libre-échange entre le Canada et l’Union Européenne.

Je ne rate pas une occasion de semoncer le gouvernement Harper, mais quand il agit bien, je le souligne. Alors voilà, c’est fait: ça a pris presque une décennie, mais je félicite un accomplissement du gouvernement Harper.

J’ai mes réserves. Lorsque j’entend parler de gestion de l’offre, je rechigne. C’est tout le contraire du libre-échange que de vouloir imposer des quotas sur l’importation de certains produits.

Oui, un traité de libre-échange pur nuirait à certains secteurs industriels. Certains emplois québécois disparaîtraient. C’est inévitable, et je le crois, désirable. Rares sont ceux qui, encore, se plaignent que nos vêtements sont fabriqués au Mexique plutôt que d’envoyer nos enfants dans l’industrie du textile. Les emplois non concurrentiels de l’industrie du textile ont été remplacés par une meilleure performance économique de secteurs industriels où le Québec et sa métropole démontrent un avantage compétitif beaucoup plus grand. J’aime mieux une ville vibrante de savoir, de design, de technologies de pointe, plutôt qu’une ville d’usines à textiles protégées au nom de la conservation d’emploi.

L’UPA et acolytes sont donc insatisfaits de devoir compétionner avec un produit, en l’occurence le fromage, subventionné par les gouvernements européens. Soit, je leur donne raison. La solution, pourtant, n’est pas de se cabrer et de refuser ces produits, mais bien d’en arriver à convaincre le Canada d’exiger, dans le cadre d’un traité de libre-échange, que ces subventions soient éliminées afin de véritablement favoriser une économie ouverte et libre. C’est, j’en conviens, une lourde tâche, mais je trouve préférable, lorsque devant une inéquité, de tenter de l’enrayer plutôt que de trouver la façon la plus égoïste de s’en accommoder.

Alors, le libre-échange, on l’attend encore. Mais, comme dit avec raison Paul Wells (en anglais), la moitié d’un pain, c’est mieux que pas de pain du tout. Pour quand, l’autre moitié?

L’économie autochtone II

posted by: Jean Gagnier on



Ainsi: une communauté autochtone vivant en terre éloignée, sans accès possible aux services urbains et à l’économie réelle, repliée sur les modes de vie ancestraux, mais en même temps assiégée par la modernité – de la motoneige à l’internet – peut-elle être viable? Et encore: quel avenir envisagent les jeunes autochtones «ordinaires», ceux et celles qu’on n’entend jamais?

(Mario Roy)



L’économie autochtone

posted by: Jean Gagnier on



Nous nous retrouvons ainsi dans la situation où l’on veut assurer aux autochtones un niveau de vie digne de citoyens d’un pays riche, tout en sachant que bon nombre d’entre eux rejettent la plupart des moyens qui permettaient d’atteindre ce même niveau de vie.

Souvent, leurs valeurs sont difficilement compatibles avec le progrès tel qu’on le conçoit dans les sociétés industrielles, qui repose sur la propriété, sur une conception du travail et surtout, sur la transformation de la nature. Même s’il y a des cas de succès économiques autochtones, on n’a pas encore trouvé de modèle généralisable, capable de concilier ces valeurs autochtones avec la création de richesse.

(Alain Dubuc)



Mark Carney part pour le Royaume-Uni

posted by: Jean Gagnier on

Bon, bien, c’est ça qui est ça pour les rumeurs voulant que Mark Carney prennent la tête du PLC. Ou, n’est-ce que partie remise?

Why Capping Salaries is a Bad Idea

posted by: Jean Gagnier on

Québec Solidaire, a socialist provincial Québec party, has recently proposed a maximum wage in Québec (in French). Françoise David, one of its co-spokespersons, finds that “there is no philosophical, moral or practical reason justifying someone earning in a day what others earn in one or two years”.

I find this proposal appalling, and certainly not desirable public policy. At the core of this matter is the role the state ought to play in society. It varies between two extremes: authoritarianism and libertarianism. Economically, between a planned economy, in which the government decides what every person does for a living, where they live, how much they get paid and so forth, and between a free economy, in which people can do whatever they want. Of course, a nuanced view is probably better, but I’ll argue it is very close to be libertarian. I’m all for a free market… but I think total freedom can impede upon my personal freedom. And that’s where I think government comes in. I want government to insure that I can create a construction firm without being threatened by the mafia. I want government to insure that the meds I purchase aren’t junk. I want government to allow me to thrive, not to impede my thriving.

A case study of totalitarianism vs. libertarianism could be the consumption of cigarettes. A totalitarian regime might think smoking is bad and thus enact a smoking ban altogether. The libertarian will claim that people should smoke whenever and wherever they want. What I think is right, and most would probably agree, is that smoking, while not contributing much to society, should be tolerated, and smokers allowed to indulge – just as long as it’s not in hospitals, public buildings, etc.

Back to economy. What I think we should strive for is collective enhancement – a society in which everyone is free to pursue whatever endeavour they desire, and where government insures that this is possible. I want to live in a wealthy, healthy society made up of people who can read and write. And it turns out that is is more readily offered by a slightly bound free economy that allows people to offer their labor, goods and services to anyone, at any price. If I can convince someone that by giving me $40,000 a year for my services, they will gain an extra $60,000, they have the right to refuse, but it benefits both of us, and they should hire me. If I purchase a car, I don’t want collusion between manufacturers, as it artificially restricts my selection. I don’t want the government to tell me which car to buy. I want the manufacturers to try their hardest to sell me the best car they have to offer at the lowest price possible. That’s what drives innovation.

This long ellipse being done with, let’s go back to Québec Solidaire’s proposal. What it does, in essence, is put a moral judgement on the top value of a labourer’s work. It means that if my services to a company will make them gain $10,000,000 a year, say, I should not have the right to request, say, half of that as my salary, even though I am worth it. I find that profoundly unfair and preposterous. Not only that, I also find it socially counterproductive. It means one of two things: either I offer my services elsewhere and Québec loses on my huge taxes while the company shuts down, or I accept the offer, and my employer is thrilled while I, the worker, get less than I deserve. It’s unfair, it hurts the economy, and I don’t know why a socialist government would propose a measure that makes us collectively poorer, and gives employers more leeway than employees. After all, this is a fair and mutually agreed upon contract, done between two private institutions. The Montréal Canadien spends around $60,000,000 on player salaries, and earns a whole lot more due to these expenses. Why is it thus unfair for the players to ask for these salaries, for their fair shair of the value they generate? Players get rich, the team gets rich, it is mutually beneficial.

The larger issue is this: I do not feel it is right to restrict people’s freedoms for the sake of a philosophical judgement. I don’t think the government should impose limits on what we can and cannot own – if I’m worth a certain amount, who is the government to tell me that I cannot ask for that much? Why regulate this? The accumulation of wealth is not morally wrong – if anything, it should be encouraged! Indeed, these measures aren’t just wrong, they are counter-productive: they impoverish us collectively, they drive people away from the province, and the ones that stay pay less taxes.

I think a much more lofty goal than capping income is insuring a minimal standard. If we, collectively, want to make sure that everyone has the possibility to enjoy a fulfilling life, we need to provide for them with health care and education. Good public transit. Tax incentives. And these are paid for in part with the very rich. By abolishing this class, you abolish a lot of tax income. If you want to redistribute money to the poor, you need to have money in the first place.

Let’s level up, not level down.