Launch of the Public Policy Section of Underneath the Golden Boy – Karine Levasseur

Friday, June 10, 2016

In the second edition of the Public Policy section of the Manitoba Law Journal, nine articles cover a broad range of public policy issues facing the province of Manitoba. Topics include infrastructure policy, poverty policy, balanced budget legislation, justice policy and labour market policy. At the launch we heard from some of the authors on recent developments in their policy areas and to learn more about the public policy landscape in the province. In this video, Dr. Karine Levasseur (Editor of the Public Policy Section of the Manitoba Law Journal: Underneath the Golden Boy & Associate Professor in Political Studies at the University of Manitoba) discusses the creation of the journal and her article, Continued Instability in Manitoba: Deficits, Taxes, Elections, and Resetting Government.

By bringing together government, practitioners, scholars and members of the community, the Manitoba Institute for Policy Research will further debates and discussion on matters of policy development, administration, and analysis both in Manitoba and across the country.

Currently we are working with the Government of Manitoba, the Federal Government, the United Way of Winnipeg, and other voluntary sector agencies on developing and implementing new outreach, training, and research opportunities.

Understanding Public Policy — A Primer (Daniel T. Griswold)

Daniel Griswold is the former director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C, and the author of the new Cato book, Mad about Trade: Why Main Street America Should Embrace Globalization. Since joining Cato in 1997, Mr. Griswold has authored major studies on globalization, trade, and immigration. He’s written articles for major newspapers, appeared on CNBC, C-SPAN, CNN, PBS, and Fox News, and testified before House and Senate committees. Earlier in his career, Mr. Griswold was editorial page editor of a daily newspaper, the Colorado Springs Gazette, and a congressional press secretary. He holds a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Wisconsin at Madison and a diploma in economics and a master’s degree in the Politics of the World Economy from the London School of Economics. Since 2012 Griswold has been president of the National Association of Foreign Trade Zones.


  1. Harold Rehling says:

    Seriously, Rothbard covered this within the first hundred pages of Man, Economy, and State. College students learn it in Introductory Microeconomics … a sophomore level class.

  2. Harold Rehling says:

    Wheat has no objective or fixed value. It's value is a function of utility and, even then, is subject to constant change based on the particular situation of each individual at any given moment.

  3. Harold Rehling says:

    Oh, and the purpose of The Fed is to
    1- Serve as the lender of last resort
    2- Maintain price stability
    3- Ensure full employment

    #1 is inflationary but deflation can always follow once banks are on solid footing.
    #2 was inflationary while improvements in production were placing downward pressure on prices but today the Fed would need to deflate to maintain stable prices.
    #3 can only be achieved with an inflationary bubble and then only temporarily.

  4. Harold Rehling says:

    Except that you are free to conduct business in whatever medium you wish. From barter to precious metals to bitcoin to Berkshares even to sea shells or acorns.

    However, you can only bank, pay taxes, and use government courts to settle contract disputes in terms of Federal Reserve banking system credits delineated in USD.

  5. adhocrat1 says:

    The problem with fiat money is that it is forced on us with Legal Tender Laws. Without that gun in the room, we would be using gold and silver.
    The inflationary practices of the FED are only possible because of fiat currency.

    "The temptation to inflate"
    This ignores that the very purpose of the FED is to inflate.

  6. Harold Rehling says:

    A Federal Reserve note has value otherwise I wouldn't be able to buy things with it. The value of a Federal Reserve note has not been decreed since the end of Breton-Woods in 1971. Rather, it is the inflationary practices of the Federal Reserve which has caused market forces to devalue the dollar.

    The temptation to inflate without restraint, and thereby place downward pressure on purchasing power, is the problem with fiat money.

  7. adhocrat1 says:

    perhaps 'intrinsic' isn't the right word. But it has value to humans as itself, without regard to its value as money. Gold, wheat, tobacco, all have value to us and they can be used as money. A piece of paper has no value to us other than what is decreed, hence the value of a dollar bill can fall to zero while the grain can be eaten, the tobacco smoked, the gold used to adorn your woman.

  8. adhocrat1 says:

    are you saying wheat has no value for humans

  9. Harold Rehling says:

    NOTHING has intrinsic value. Everything has a subjective perceived value.

    Currency IS money because people USE currency as money.

    You might want to give Rothbard a read yourself.

  10. adhocrat1 says:

    Money has intrinsic value. Currency is perceived value.

    The dollar will be inflated into worthlessness. Then it will be good only for toilet paper, but money will still be used to buy goods and services. Money might be gold, silver, or it might be wheat or tobacco, but it will have intrinsic value.

    IOW, when people laugh at your dollar bills, they will accept silver coins.

    The fact you think currency is money is a fundamental error
    Read Murray Rothbard for detail

  11. NotSoFast says:

    RIP Walter Samaszco

  12. naliuj says:

    I have known plenty of people who have lived large portions of their lives without using federal currency.
    Nothaus did the equivalent of trying to sell drugs in territory that was already claimed.
    The Government is an institution that perpetuates its power through monopoly of services, i am sure we can agree on that, what we can't see eye to eye on is whether you want an institution or an individual to take your money at gun point.

  13. naliuj says:

    The government is not "the people" it is the institution that controls everything within an arbitrarily defined border.
    Some governments are democratically elected, but those elected representatives hold no direct responsibility to those who they "govern"
    So the government doesnt own the money they just print, distribute and assign its value?
    fiat currency has the value that it is perceived to have. Define money Define currency and we can continue.

  14. Greg Gauthier says:

    You know, you might come across as more convincing if you weren't quite so ignorant. The use of FRNs is not a choice, or anything even remotely like a "contract". It is enforced at the point of a gun. Think otherwise? Google Bernard von Nothaus.

  15. adhocrat1 says:

    Your statement is too vague. Who is 'the government' but the people. So you are saying the people own the money. 😉

    Therefore, the person who earns the money owns the money.

    The government doesn't 'own' the money, it simply prints currency.

    In economic terms, there is no 'money' circulating, only fiat currency.
    This is a crucial difference.

  16. naliuj says:

    care to expand against my statement the "money belongs to the government" instead of using hyperbole and vague allusions to knowing a greater truth?

  17. adhocrat1 says:

    you went to government schools, didn't you?

    They did a good job convincing you that left is right, black is white and currency is money

    Sad, really.

  18. naliuj says:

    oh look a libertarian using to the libertarian morality argument to institute a society where the power of pointing a gun falls to the individual with the biggest gun.
    the libertarian moral argument falls apart when you realize that the money you are giving to the government actually belongs to the government in the first place, and the contract of using a state's money is the concession of paying taxes.
    Dont want to pay taxes? dont use money.

  19. theteckman says:

    Horrible presentation. Please do not show me a slide for 3 minutes. This guy just reads off a page. What happened to public speaking skills? Get off the power point and tell me something.

  20. Greg Gauthier says:

    What do we mean by "public policy"? This: I get a gun, I point it at you, and I get you to do whatever I want because I have a gun pointed at you.

Leave a Reply