People like Walter need extermination off the planet
Why? Other than being a bit odd walter is on the right side.
People like Walter need extermination off the planet
People like Walter need extermination off the planet
Why? Other than being a bit odd walter is on the right side.
He's racist garbage, that's the main reason. Lots of dumb racist apologists here.Why? Other than being a bit odd walter is on the right side.
It's not the Feds job to develop Ontario's mfg ability.
Had your province had any foresight, they would not have taxed the industry to death and driven them South.
Now, if what you're saying is that Ontario can not be counted on to make good decisions and want Harper to take the reigns of power, well, that would be an excellent idea
I'm sure Harper's 'surprising' initiative to finally start investing in manufacturing again will help.
If only he had listened to the economists who were recommending this years ago, we might have avoided this lopsided economy.
You'll need to take off those oil tinted glasses one day Angstrom.
Nominal GDP growth takes an even deeper hit than real GDP at below 2%, compared to the 5% we would have enjoyed if oil had just stayed at 100 bucks.
It is nominal figures, after all, that matter in fiscal finances, and we find that the difference between US$100 and US$50 is a $61.2-billion surplus at the federal level and a deficit of almost $1-billion.
The impact on TSX profits is even more pronounced. Instead of earnings per share growth of around 15% for this year in the US$100-per-barrel scenario, there’s a projected decline of more than 10% under a US$50 oil backdrop.
In other words, the TSX would be trading at a 16x forward price-to-earnings multiple with oil at US$100 instead of 21x — that’s the difference US$50 makes: five points on the multiple.
The unemployment rate in that land of US$100 oil would have averaged 6.6% this year, but the jobless rate ends up closer to 7.1% at US$50.
Again, the impact of a US$50 difference in the price of oil that has already exerted itself on Bank of Canada policy is a nontrivial drag on the loonie.
David Rosenberg is chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff + Associates Inc. and author of the daily economic report, Breakfast with Dave. Follow David and his colleagues on Twitter @GluskinSheffInc
David Rosenberg: What US$50 oil really means for Canada’s economy | Financial Post
And kept resources in the ground and not built up west coast ports, highways, bridges and railways to keep the vast wealth of Canada landlocked for another 100 years because of some whinny bitches in Ontario?
None of your post disagrees with the fact that we should have had a more balanced portfolio in the first place, Angstrom.
You are assuming that we could not have done both.
None of your post disagrees with the fact that we should have had a more balanced portfolio in the first place Angstrom
Harper investing in manufacturing?? Get a grip. By plunging the economy into the beginning of recession, and putting our dollar on the fastest slide I have ever seen he has diminished the value of our dollar so that world can buy our goods at a really cheap price. However, since Canada is large importer of goods from other countries, guess where the cost of living goes goes for Canadians (Hint it ain't down) The price of food, and all the goods we don't manufacture will be felt in a month or less. Now add to that the salaries and the pensions that will not catch up for many months, or even years, who suffers??? All Canadians except perhaps the few manufacturers that actually have a market outside of Canada. Canada sells mostly raw materials.I'm sure Harper's 'surprising' initiative to finally start investing in manufacturing again will help.
If only he had listened to the economists who were recommending this years ago, we might have avoided this lopsided economy.