John Robson: Carney, the answer is simple — deregulate everything

Prime Minister Mark Carney arrives at the West Block on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (PHOTO BY HYUNGCHEOL PARK/Postmedia)

Article content

According to Monday’s National Post A1, “Scenarios are all either bad or very, very bad,” which could refer to almost anything and I’d likely agree. But oddly here it’s the economy where, for once, I see a happy outcome. To quote my grad-school bumper sticker, “Deregulate everything.”

Article content

It’s not actually crisis-specific. Long before Adam Smith, David Ricardo then various Austrian and neo-classic economist theorists, it was practically clear that places that left peaceful, honest citizens to manage their own affairs prospered economically, culturally and even militarily, whereas bloated-state societies were stagnant and frequently grotesque. And forgive the pedantic references but our prime minister has a PhD in economics.

Article content

Article content

Article content

Not that it does him much good, or us. I was in grad school so long ago I remember how people laughed when Thatcher, Reagan or Roger Douglas sat down to play. Or howled. But Britain, the US and New Zealand benefitted massively from deregulation and even Canada, more timidly, got gains. It wasn’t enough, but it confirmed the theory.

Article content

Article content

So of course we chucked it. For a third of a century, every day in every way the state has gotten bigger and bigger. And with gruesomely disappointing results, from real incomes to social division, it’s full speed behind.

Article content

As another Postie, Carson Jerema, just wrote, “There is no great mystery behind why some nations are wealthy and others are not. The policy mix varies very little and is well understood. Countries with lower, neutral tax systems, minimal regulations, the rule of law and openness to international trade and foreign investment are wealthier than countries with higher taxes, more complicated regulations, and which are closed off to the world.”

Article content

Including 19th-century Britannia ruling the waves, markets and culture with a “night watchman” state taking under 10 per cent of GDP, then choosing 20th-century socialism and shrinking: ever poorer, seedier and angrier. But is it “well understood”? It seems not.

Article content

Article content

Back in my salad days I thought the big challenge was understanding good policy. Now that I’m wilted, I think it’s understanding why good policy doesn’t happen. With me in charge you’d get low, flat taxes, sound money, a bonfire of the regulations and big cuts to social programs that reward undesirable conduct, from being unemployable to not saving for retirement. Calvin Coolidge with internet.

Article content

Article content

So what do the Liberals do instead? Why? And why do we let them?

Article content

Especially with their weird recruiting of Marilyn Gladu it’s clear that their ideology is as hard to articulate as, say, Doug Ford’s. Mark Carney has the slick careerist intellectual’s gift for high-falutin’ references, but as Geoff Russ just wrote in the Post, when he quotes Wilfrid Laurier he totally misses the point, Laurier’s commitment to liberty under law.

Article content

Instead, consistent with Trudeau Sr., would-be civil libertarian architect of big, meddlesome, profligate government, we get rhetorically slippery, theory-poor “L’Etat, c’est moi” in which no decision is best left to private citizens within a predictable, impartial framework. Instead it’s all catalyzing the leveraged transformation. Nudge theory with a thesaurus.