Eh-Oh-Canada-Go

bloop bloop blah
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67278
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 309 times
Received rep: 377 times

Post #3351 by AD » Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:53 am

I hate this government SO much!!

:why:
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53133
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1034 times
Received rep: 634 times

Post #3352 by Dog » Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:58 am

AD wrote:I hate this government SO much!!

:why:


No you don't. They are giving you a grand or two in tax breaks. Such astute fiscal managers!
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67278
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 309 times
Received rep: 377 times

Post #3353 by AD » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:00 am

Dog wrote:No you don't. They are giving you a grand or two in tax breaks. Such astute fiscal managers!


Well I like that. But I'd probably like it better if they splurged for a new train to the airport and better funding to the provinces for roads and schools.
User avatar
Sturminator
Registered Broad
Posts: 2349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:55 am
Received rep: 3 times

Post #3354 by Sturminator » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:04 am

Image
If a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of a nation.
User avatar
Puck
Registered Broad
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:26 am
Has given rep: 4 times
Received rep: 1 time

Post #3355 by Puck » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:05 am

Also looks like interest rates won't go up until the third or fourth quarter so that will help the CPC on keeping the good managers byline a bit longer, from the cries of mortgage and real estate anguish. Whenever world interest rates rise that won't help the stock market and people's retirement stock portfolios (if we go back to the 70's stock market doldrums). Anyway, the CPC seem to be going from Plan A (good managers) to Plan B (leadership on security and the fear of terror card) to fight the next election.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38052
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 174 times

Post #3356 by Craig » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:06 am

Big#D wrote:i'm assuming they'll sell off some assets as well (one time gains).

but look at us. we're good fiscal managers.


They can't do that to balance the books this year, can they? Count the profits from sales that haven't taken place yet?

I think they think the contingency funds will cover it. Which means calling it balanced is a bit of a stretch, but not entirely unfair. For me, the big question is what you do when the surplus hits 5 billion+ a year in a year or two. That's more like 8 when you count the contingency money. That's a big enough chunk to embark on major policy of some sort, be it tax cuts, handing Toronto a subway, or serious debt reduction. Luckily, there's an election between now and then so hopefully someone will run on sane fiscal policy and win.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53133
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1034 times
Received rep: 634 times

Post #3357 by Dog » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:14 am

Puck wrote:Anyway, the CPC seem to be going from Plan A (good managers) to Plan B (leadership on security and the fear of terror card) to fight the next election.


So they'll go from giving AD a tax break to holding AD on a security warrant without habeas corpus.

I can live with that.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67278
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 309 times
Received rep: 377 times

Post #3358 by AD » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:19 am

I hate them so...

Wait. Never mind. I, for one, respect our political leadership and oppose subversive views.
User avatar
Puck
Registered Broad
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:26 am
Has given rep: 4 times
Received rep: 1 time

Post #3359 by Puck » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:27 am

AD wrote:
Wait. Never mind. I, for one, respect our political leadership and oppose subversive views.
Too late. CSIS knows who you are I'm sure from reading your posts. You'll never be allowed on a plane to go anywhere even if they don't pick you up (too expensive to throw us all behind bars). At least you won't catch measles going to Disneyland with your tax refund.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67278
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 309 times
Received rep: 377 times

Post #3360 by AD » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:44 am

I would like to congratulate Malthus on generating meaningful discussions with his links, summaries and arguments in the last days.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53133
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1034 times
Received rep: 634 times

Post #3361 by Dog » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:48 am

AD wrote:I would like to congratulate Malthus on generating meaningful discussions with his links, summaries and arguments in the last days.


He's still posting instead of doing his homework, though.

:why:
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53133
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1034 times
Received rep: 634 times

Post #3362 by Dog » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:56 am

Thomas Malthus wrote:I'm going to wreck this International Trade class and it's my only class this semester since I'm on my last co-op placement. I also applied to grad school last week, so now it's the waiting game. I actually can't wait to dig into the term paper for the Trade class; I'm tackling Canadian dairy and poultry supply management.


Whatevs. Come talk to me after you actually get into a top grad school, malthus.

:rollseyes:
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53133
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1034 times
Received rep: 634 times

Post #3363 by Dog » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:05 pm

Thomas Malthus wrote:Image


Deserve it.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38052
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 174 times

Post #3364 by Craig » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:08 pm

AD wrote:I would like to congratulate Malthus on generating meaningful discussions with his links, summaries and arguments in the last days.


Discussion. Singular. Let's not get carried away.

Thomas Malthus wrote:Despite the serious mistake in Rienhart and Rogoff's paper, the point still remains that having a high debt to GDP ratio is associated with much slower growth. But that's only when the ratio is really, really high. Canada (federally) is nowhere near other developed countries, but when you add in the provinces the total debt-to-GDP is 112% (luckily Canada's borrowing rate isn't determined by the debt of the provinces but just its own). Considering that infrastructure is mostly a provincial thing it would make sense to use the federal government's borrowing power to help keep the provinces healthier and stimulate demand via these projects.

You want to pay down the debt? So do I, in the long term. But I also want to ensure that fiscal and monetary policy are working together. Sure, because of the low interest rates debt servicing charges are low but let's not also forget that servicing your debt can be affordable at higher interest rates provided that they increase more slowly than GDP does. And if stimulating demand and investment in these projects can boost growth in a time where interest rates are likely to continue staying low for while longer, then it's a good bet to me that debt servicing will become more affordable (even if we increase the debt by deficit financing the infrastructure projects).


I'm not particularly concerned with the current debt to GDP ratio either, I'd just rather pay less than 30 billion a year servicing debt. Part of why we weathered the recession better than other countries is we went into it with a surplus and not that much debt. Since then we've added like 50% to our debt across all levels, for good cause mind you, but I'd like to get back down to that level.

GDP growth should outpace interest rate hikes most years. But there's always going to be those years where it doesn't. Interest rates can jump 5% in a year when your GDP is flat. That's extreme, but I'd still rather have a little cushion. I mean if we're borrowing lots to spend lots and then things go sideways, do you really want to dump austerity on top of that? I'd rather save the borrowing for when things are bad and pay it back when things are relatively good. I think, despite the recent oil plunge, things are relatively good right now, so we should focus on paying back. I'm a simple Keynesian at heart, TM.

Thomas Malthus wrote:I would like to thank everyone for being straight up and telling me that I was being annoying. I appreciate your candor. True friends, all.

:celtic2_1barca:

And to be clear, because I feel as though it's not in my previous posts, I don't consider infrastructure investment to be a panacea. That would be incredibly stupid. But, I do consider it a step in the right direction. And, considering that many of the options that used to exist for stimulating the economy are no longer options, it makes sense to try everything that seems like it might work.


Sometimes doing nothing works pretty well too.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38052
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 174 times

Post #3365 by Craig » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:09 pm

That said, if the feds want to buy Toronto a downtown relief line, that would be terrific. Please do that.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53133
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1034 times
Received rep: 634 times

Post #3366 by Dog » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:17 pm

You don't even have a car, do you malthus?
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38052
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 174 times

Post #3367 by Craig » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:27 pm

Thomas Malthus wrote:I don't really think that things are relatively good right now and I'd rather take my car in for maintenance than and drive it around until the engine blows before taking it into the shop.


GDP is growing at 2.5% or so a year and real GDP growth is about 1%. Our largest trading partner is growing even faster and our numbers normally lag theirs by a little. We've also got a balanced budget and unemployment is going down by about 0.5% a year over the last 5 years. Heck, even productivity is up and trending higher over the last 5 years. Boom times? Not really, but I think we're comfortably in a "relatively good" sort of space.

Even if your car has just spent half a decade in the shop? At some point you have to drive the fucker.
User avatar
Puck
Registered Broad
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:26 am
Has given rep: 4 times
Received rep: 1 time

Post #3368 by Puck » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:27 pm

I wouldn't over-react on the debt to GDP ratio either, the ratio will go down in the long run as GDP rises.

But Martin had it more right by keeping a buffer IMO but the CPC saw 'over-taxation' and it gave them ammo to come up with quicker tax cuts. Martin was doing the tax cut operation slowly anyway. If the CPC hadn't blown that, quickly, the debt would be much lower today. Going Keynesian later also gave them room to spend CPC cheques in Ontario buying votes on deficit spending. The deficit then gives them the big excuse to cut government programs. for the next round of tax goodies.

We are never going to see surpluses or a buffer again IMO. Politically if the CPC can't keep one and prefer cutting taxes deep, the other parties won't be in any mood to impose sacrifices to create a new surplus so the CPC can go on their next election spree with it. Buffers or trust funds for the future (saving during a surplus to pay for the next recession's deficit) are out of the question now IMO. It's either spend it on a social program right away (NDP) or give tax breaks right away (CPC) or something in between for the Liberals. Buffers, and contingency funds will be spent faster than shoppers at a Thanksgiving Day sale.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 10973
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 25 times
Received rep: 27 times

Post #3369 by RTWAP » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:54 pm

Thomas Malthus wrote:Except that I'm pretty sure the provinces with HST can't unilaterally change their PST component, can they?


I can't see why any province would agree to sign away one of their constitutionally mandated powers just for a bit of efficiency.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38052
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 174 times

Post #3370 by Craig » Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:08 pm

Thomas Malthus wrote:Most forecasts are already in real terms Craig, so the IMF is forecasting 2.3% real growth in 2015 and 2.1% in 2016.


Even better!
User avatar
Puck
Registered Broad
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:26 am
Has given rep: 4 times
Received rep: 1 time

Post #3371 by Puck » Wed Feb 04, 2015 2:22 pm

I wonder when the CPC pulls out the 4th or 5th signing ceremony with the EU. We should be due for another before the election.

They haven't been able to get the Keystone pipeline through for their base but they will vote CPC anyway.

Duffy is coming up but unless Mike pulls a magic e-mail rabbit out of his hat, or Wright turns on his buddies (doubtful) and only Duffy is found guilty, the CPC spin machine will go into overdrive that Harper is exonerated because no paper trail was found (even though it means nothing of the sort).

Hurting Trudeau on reefer madness went nowhere for last Summer's CPC ad trial balloon, so making him look weak on jihadists seems a better option. NDP will always be the dreaded Socialists, so any poll gains on their part can be used to scare the right flank of the Liberal Party to vote CPC.

CPC figures it owns 'the Economy' (can't figure that one out but what the heck). If anything goes south there, expect more screaming about terror and jihadists.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67278
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 309 times
Received rep: 377 times

Post #3372 by AD » Wed Feb 04, 2015 2:52 pm

Trudeau better fucking get his ducks in a row and propose a simple, easy, populist economic message/plan.

Or all is lost.. :why:
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38052
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 174 times

Post #3373 by Craig » Wed Feb 04, 2015 3:39 pm

I'd rather leave healthcare policy decisions up to the provinces.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67278
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 309 times
Received rep: 377 times

Post #3374 by AD » Wed Feb 04, 2015 3:40 pm

Craig wrote:I'd rather leave healthcare policy decisions up to the provinces.


Agreed.

-1 Malthus for your centralist hegemonious views.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38052
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 174 times

Post #3375 by Craig » Wed Feb 04, 2015 3:47 pm

AD wrote:Agreed.

-1 Malthus for your centralist hegemonious views.


I don't mind centralizing healthcare either. I just don't want a mix.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67278
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 309 times
Received rep: 377 times

Post #3376 by AD » Wed Feb 04, 2015 3:50 pm

Craig wrote:I don't mind centralizing healthcare either. I just don't want a mix.


DON'T TREAD ON ME!
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67278
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 309 times
Received rep: 377 times

Post #3377 by AD » Wed Feb 04, 2015 3:55 pm

It would probably be more efficient to decentralize everything and keep the federalis just in charge of the army and the post office. Giant monolithic centralized public structures are a nightmare.
User avatar
Murphy
Posts: 2727
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 7 times

Post #3378 by Murphy » Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:08 pm

AD wrote:It would probably be more efficient to decentralize everything and keep the federalis just in charge of the army and the post office. Giant monolithic centralized public structures are a nightmare.


I would actually prefer it if each province had their own army. Instead of the feds.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67278
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 309 times
Received rep: 377 times

Post #3379 by AD » Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:09 pm

Murphy wrote:I would actually prefer it if each province had their own army. Instead of the feds.


I was gonna go there but I didn't want to get Mumu's hopes up.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38052
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 174 times

Post #3380 by Craig » Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:42 pm

AD wrote:DON'T TREAD ON ME!


Quebec can have it's separate, worse, system for this like they can everything else.

Thomas Malthus wrote:I would too (for the same reason you mentioned below - don't want too many hands in the pot), but Ontario already has a bunch of reports on making long term structural changes to the healthcare delivery system in order to reduce costs and improve services in response to demographic changes and they're doing jack with them. I'm not saying that the federal government should step in and plan out what the provinces should do but since the provinces won't be able to fund these kinds of things on their own it would make sense for the federal government to coordinate things and help fund a necessary transition - no Canadian left behind. Plus, I'm kind of sick of just throwing money at health care without results.


Define without results. Last time I checked hospital wait times were trending in the right direction in Ontario, as was life expectancy. I don't really like life expectancy as a measure, but I'm not really sure what else to use. Every time I've gone to a hospital they've like, cured me.

AD wrote:It would probably be more efficient to decentralize everything and keep the federalis just in charge of the army and the post office. Giant monolithic centralized public structures are a nightmare.


Why the post office?

It depends on the thing. I think things like the Post Office and Pensions are better centralized, because there are economies of scale and/or little regional specialization. I don't see why you couldn't do things like wildlife and game centrally either, just because the mandate isn't that big. Other stuff, like hospitals, I guess I agree is better broken up.

In general, when I hear of a system that is national, except Quebec opted to do it themselves because they're special, I get the impression Quebec's version is less efficient.
User avatar
edgar_dong
Registered Broad
Posts: 37137
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:51 am
Has given rep: 343 times
Received rep: 405 times

Post #3381 by edgar_dong » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:41 pm

Libs will support C-51. :why:
User avatar
Redden Punches Faces
Registered Broad
Posts: 5204
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:34 pm
Has given rep: 2 times
Received rep: 2 times

Post #3382 by Redden Punches Faces » Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:59 pm

HSU's CENSUS PMB BEATEN LIKE RENTED MULE.

HOUSE VOTES OVERWHELMINGLY TO COLLECT LOWER QUALITY DATA AT HIGHER OVERALL COSTS

:pacman:

Return to “bleetbloop”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests