[shockedcanadian]

Lemmy Lemmy:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

Got ya. Two tenths of a percent growth last quarter, loss of full-time jobs replaced by part-time jobs. How is this "strategy" working out?

Got some research to support your "loss of full-time, replaced by part-time jobs" contention?

We want slow, steady growth. That's exactly the point of economic policy: to limit swings. 0.2%/quater is just fine. Ideal, in fact.

Ideal compared to what? What if inflation is .4% a quarter? What if the dollar dips 10%? Or the Consumer Price Index balloons?

The fact is that if we had a well run economy we would run surpluses. But we don't, in good or bad times. We rely on borrowing from future generations just to meet basic obligations today, and then we offer little prospect for these generations. We are leaving a mess, socially and economically.

Globalization is the key, we tout it as a great solution but are ill prepared to compete in it. This is even before I get into the lack of trust allies have of us, and the meddling that occurs in our economy.

If a company cannot compete, than they can close shop and try selling their vehicles to China. No more welfare payments for every Tom, Dick and Harry that asks for it.

[DrCaleb]

[Lemmy]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

Ideal compared to what?

Compared to any other time in history, when wild swings in economic activity resulted in terrific hardship and uncertainty.

nutsy nutsy:

What if inflation is .4% a quarter?

Then inflation would be slightly higher than growth. So what? 0.2% and 0.4% are a wet dream. Both are near ideal numbers for those stats. Are suggesting we should be concerned over an annual inflation rate of around 1.5%? That's well within targets.

nutsy nutsy:

What if the dollar dips 10%?

Then exporters will be happy and rich people who vacation out of the country won't be.

nutsy nutsy:

Or the Consumer Price Index balloons?

Asked and answered. The CPI is just a measure of inflation, addressed above. And if growth is slow, why would you be concerned that the CPI would balloon? It wouldn't. If GDP growth is low, inflation will be too. One doesn't balloon without the other.

nutsy nutsy:

The fact is that if we had a well run economy we would run surpluses. But we don't, in good or bad times. We rely on borrowing from future generations just to meet basic obligations today, and then we offer little prospect for these generations. We are leaving a mess, socially and economically.

Globalization is the key, we tout it as a great solution but are ill prepared to compete in it. This is even before I get into the lack of trust allies have of us, and the meddling that occurs in our economy.

If a company cannot compete, than they can close shop and try selling their vehicles to China. No more welfare payments for every Tom, Dick and Harry that asks for it.

You're all over the place and out of your element. You haven't the baseline grasp of economics necessary to discuss these issue. I don't even know where to begin with you.

[shockedcanadian]

[/quote]
You're all over the place and out of your element. You haven't the baseline grasp of economics necessary to discuss these issue. I don't even know where to begin with you.[/quote]

Please do tell. I would love to have a lengthy in depth discussion of economics. You can begin by making the argument as to why the government should be borrowing vast amounts of money, FAR higher than any growth we have experienced certainly anytime in the last 20 years. Please justify why government expansion, intervention and state dependency on debt growth is so appealing to you.

First, inflation is the more general term for increased prices, CPI is for a basket of goods, those most dear to families, such as bread and milk; they are staples. There is a difference, especially depending on your station in life. Inflation in general might not bother you if the price of cars or the new iphone increased 25%, but if milk and bread increase by that much, it could impact you and your family significantly. Especially if one is stuck in a part-time job just to eat.

Jurisdictions borrow if you are in a growth cycle, you don't borrow to keep the masses happy, especially those reliant of government employment. So if the economy was booming at 3-4%, borrowing makes sense as you can theoretically invest AND pay down the borrowing short term. Even with the low borrowing rates now taxpayers are getting fleeced as fall deeper and deeper into the abyss. Nothing compared to those who will inherit this mess when I am long gone and we don't even touch the principle of these debts. As I stated about Mayor Fords options, this will be nationwide.

Too many don't even understand the difference between real capitalism and this perverse, warped view of "capitalism". I'm tired of it being called socialism, it is worse than that, it's cronyism. It is borrowing to maintain power and buy votes. It is relying on short term decisions to avoid the inevitable pain.

The economic numbers don't lie. Whatever this is that you apparently support, it isn't working. We have the Millennials essentially a lost generation, what about their children?

[Lemmy]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

Please do tell. I would love to have a lengthy in depth discussion of economics. You can begin by making the argument as to why the government should be borrowing vast amounts of money, FAR higher than any growth we have experienced certainly anytime in the last 20 years.

They should be borrowing because they were elected, with a majority, on a mandate to invest in infrastructure and stimulate the economy.

nutsy nutsy:

Please justify why government expansion, intervention and state dependency on debt growth is so appealing to you.

First, that's hyperbole, and second, I never said that the strawman you're building was appealing to me.

nutsy nutsy:

First, inflation is the more general term for increased prices, CPI is for a basket of goods, those most dear to families, such as bread and milk; they are staples. There is a difference, especially depending on your station in life. Inflation in general might not bother you if the price of cars or the new iphone increased 25%, but if milk and bread increase by that much, it could impact you and your family significantly. Especially if one is stuck in a part-time job just to eat.

You're going to give an economics professor a lesson on what the CPI is, eh? Inflation bothers me immensely. Good thing we don't have any in Canada.

nutsy nutsy:

Jurisdictions borrow if you are in a growth cycle, you don't borrow to keep the masses happy, especially those reliant of government employment. So if the economy was booming at 3-4%, borrowing makes sense as you can theoretically invest AND pay down the borrowing short term. Even with the low borrowing rates now taxpayers are getting fleeced as fall deeper and deeper into the abyss. Nothing compared to those who will inherit this mess when I am long gone and we don't even touch the principle of these debts. As I stated about Mayor Fords options, this will be nationwide.

Too many don't even understand the difference between real capitalism and this perverse, warped view of "capitalism". I'm tired of it being called socialism, it is worse than that, it's cronyism. It is borrowing to maintain power and buy votes. It is relying on short term decisions to avoid the inevitable pain.

The economic numbers don't lie. Whatever this is that you apparently support, it isn't working. We have the Millennials essentially a lost generation, what about their children?

tl;dr

You'll have to pose your questions rationally, absent rhetoric and hyperbole. Then I'll be happy to answer them.

[shockedcanadian]

[/quote]

You'll have to pose your questions rationally, absent rhetoric and hyperbole. Then I'll be happy to answer them.[/quote]

Ah, the Professors response.

Do I need to re-post specific numbers yet again? I will ask the question without anything as insulting as cause-effect. Let me be more direct: "Can Canada continue borrowing and expanding debt forever and without limit"?

Here's a hint to consider. In Ontario we have doubled the debt in 10 years, not the deficit, the entire debt in the history of the province since the dawn of time. We have lost a massive amount of manufacturing jobs. We have the longest waits for healthcare in Canada. We are the most indebted sub-borrowing jurisdiction in the world.

Ready? Go!

[Lemmy]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

Do I need to re-post specific numbers yet again? I will ask the question without anything as insulting as cause-effect. Let me be more direct: "Can Canada continue borrowing and expanding debt forever and without limit"?

No.

nutsy nutsy:

Here's a hint to consider. In Ontario we have doubled the debt in 10 years, not the deficit, the entire debt in the history of the province since the dawn of time. We have lost a massive amount of manufacturing jobs. We have the longest waits for healthcare in Canada. We are the most indebted sub-borrowing jurisdiction in the world.

Ready? Go!

#1: We've lost manufacturing jobs, but not manufacturing. Those jobs were lost to robots. The value of manufacturing continues to rise, year after year in Ontario. Are you suggesting we shouldn't replace labour with technology where efficient and profitable?

#2: Yes, there are problems with healthcare funding. And they're going to get worse until the Baby-boomers are dead. That's a source of deficit spending that can't be avoided, unless we go Logan's Run and kill the elderly. I'm not convinced that your contention about wait times is true, but wait times are certainly something we'd all like to see improved. That, too, comes with a cost that involves gov't spending. All in all, however, we enjoy excellent healthcare by any objective measure. Better than virtually any jurisdiction anywhere in the world, whether or not Quebec or PEI has marginally shorter wait times.

#3: If that's true and it's the worst thing ever, why aren't our living conditions the worst in the world? Things are strong, economically in Ontario. That's objective fact. Name a place in the world that has a higher overall standard of living and quality of life. That tells me that indebtedness isn't, in and of itself, the harbinger of doom. If it was, we'd already be living like Zimbabweans, wouldn't we? You mentioned cause and effect. Well yours are disconnected here. And you're prone to hyperbole. That won't do.

[shockedcanadian]

Lemmy Lemmy:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

Do I need to re-post specific numbers yet again? I will ask the question without anything as insulting as cause-effect. Let me be more direct: "Can Canada continue borrowing and expanding debt forever and without limit"?

No.

[quote="nutsy"]

Great. So what politician or party will start thinking about the long term? When will we have a sustainable surplus?

Since it is taboo in Canada to think about responsible government, it is always put off for another year, another term, another party, another generation.

[Public_Domain]

[Lemmy]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

Great. So what politician or party will start thinking about the long term? When will we have a sustainable surplus?

Why would we want a surplus? You want the government to pocket your money and hold on to it with no budgetary justification for it?

nutsy nutsy:

Since it is taboo in Canada to think about responsible government, it is always put off for another year, another term, another party, another generation.

If it's possible for us to "put off for another year", why wouldn't it possible for future generations to do so? Debt isn't a bad thing. If it was, no one would own a house or car or business. How do you think progress is funded? Capitalization requires debt. Debt is only a problem if it can't be repaid. And what's the interest rate now, I forget?

[Public_Domain]