We're projected to grow only 2% this year, as opposed to 2.4% last year, but we're still doing better than other countries. That's something to be grateful for.
Canada's economy is leading the G-7
- Thread starter Vancouverite
- Start date
2% is nothing to sneeze at. Must upset those on the left that Harper &co. are doing something right. pun intended.
The world is on the economic skids and we're leaders by default, thanks to commodities like wheat and oil.The Tories cme to power a few years back with a silver spoon in their mouth and conducted a great PR campaign to convince everyone what awesome economic managers they've been. And they were surprised by the recession in 2008. Give'em a C+ , steady but plodders, no creativity.
The myth of Tory economic performance - The Globe and Mail
" From 2007 to 2011, Canada’s economic performance put us in the middle of the pack in GDP growth among 34 industrialized countries. Our unemployment rate is currently rising and nearing the U.S. level. It’s true that, comparatively speaking, we’re doing well on a number of other economic indices. But given the advantages the Conservatives enjoyed when they took office – the big surplus, the well-regulated financial sector, the natural-resource-laden riches – how much of an accomplishment is it? When you start a race a lap ahead of the field, how hard is it to be among the leaders? "
The myth of Tory economic performance - The Globe and Mail
" From 2007 to 2011, Canada’s economic performance put us in the middle of the pack in GDP growth among 34 industrialized countries. Our unemployment rate is currently rising and nearing the U.S. level. It’s true that, comparatively speaking, we’re doing well on a number of other economic indices. But given the advantages the Conservatives enjoyed when they took office – the big surplus, the well-regulated financial sector, the natural-resource-laden riches – how much of an accomplishment is it? When you start a race a lap ahead of the field, how hard is it to be among the leaders? "
Last edited:
We could probably get that GDP growth up to 3% if we dramatically increased spending, and lowered tax rates.
The only problem with that plan is that we would experience massive deficits. We wouldn't want to plunge our nation into such debt just to artificially inflate our growth rates... uh...wait a sec...
The only problem with that plan is that we would experience massive deficits. We wouldn't want to plunge our nation into such debt just to artificially inflate our growth rates... uh...wait a sec...
3%? No, no, nomy friend. Think BIG! How about we scrap taxes altogether, rev up government spending, lower the bank rate down to 0%, and print and borrow to our hearts' content. We'll have growth in the 10% range in no time... at least as long as it lasts.
I mean, if the goal is growth, we might as well go all the way, right?
Sarcasm aside, I'm less conserned with being number one than I am with simply ensuring sustainability. If the economy grows, bonus. But sustainability ought to be the order of the day.
First of all, and all things considered I am more to the left than the right but given a
choice I would not increase spending or lower taxes. You cannot spend your way
to prosperity because at some point you have to pay back the money you spent as
more spending requires more borrowing. In addition if you spend more borrowed
money you will likely increase the inflation rate which drives the price up for future
projects.
On the other side of the coin as it were if you decrease taxes in a difficult situation
you do not have the money to maintain the infrastructure that already exists. Yes
you have cheaper taxes for the present however in future years you have to then,
maintain service levels for infrastructure, things like , roads, bridges and buildings.
That does not include service levels of programs. Some say to hell with programs,
but then again if you slash them you end up with all those people on the welfare
roles and you pay anyway sometimes significantly more than if you left things alone.
Most people think when your government develops a program for farmers or for the
private sector to access research money that all the money goes to the project and
that is just not true. For example ten, fifteen or even twenty percent of the funding
goes to someone to administer it. So remember if a project gets a hundred million,
one and a half million at least goes for administration.
At the present, Harper has saved us from nothing. We were among the last to go into
the recession and near depression. In fact in the months immediately prior to the
collapse of the economy this government was saying there was not problem. All of a
sudden when they were caught napping they fixed our problem with props instead of
fixing the financial ills of the nation. The person who really saved this country from
utter ruin, like it or not was Paul Martin and the actions he took as finance minister.
I know I didn't like Paul Martin either but the fact remains his financial stewardship is
what allowed the present government some breathing room and if Europe, Asia and
American don't get there house in order we will be in the tank right along with them.
Harper's little gang is lucky more than they are smart. And remember if they take the
credit now, when the sh*t hits the fan they will have to take the blame.
choice I would not increase spending or lower taxes. You cannot spend your way
to prosperity because at some point you have to pay back the money you spent as
more spending requires more borrowing. In addition if you spend more borrowed
money you will likely increase the inflation rate which drives the price up for future
projects.
On the other side of the coin as it were if you decrease taxes in a difficult situation
you do not have the money to maintain the infrastructure that already exists. Yes
you have cheaper taxes for the present however in future years you have to then,
maintain service levels for infrastructure, things like , roads, bridges and buildings.
That does not include service levels of programs. Some say to hell with programs,
but then again if you slash them you end up with all those people on the welfare
roles and you pay anyway sometimes significantly more than if you left things alone.
Most people think when your government develops a program for farmers or for the
private sector to access research money that all the money goes to the project and
that is just not true. For example ten, fifteen or even twenty percent of the funding
goes to someone to administer it. So remember if a project gets a hundred million,
one and a half million at least goes for administration.
At the present, Harper has saved us from nothing. We were among the last to go into
the recession and near depression. In fact in the months immediately prior to the
collapse of the economy this government was saying there was not problem. All of a
sudden when they were caught napping they fixed our problem with props instead of
fixing the financial ills of the nation. The person who really saved this country from
utter ruin, like it or not was Paul Martin and the actions he took as finance minister.
I know I didn't like Paul Martin either but the fact remains his financial stewardship is
what allowed the present government some breathing room and if Europe, Asia and
American don't get there house in order we will be in the tank right along with them.
Harper's little gang is lucky more than they are smart. And remember if they take the
credit now, when the sh*t hits the fan they will have to take the blame.
I prefer sustainability over growth. More or bigger is not always better. Stability is good and we have that because of our banking structure. Growth causes as many problems as it solves because it's taxes the future. It's a stupid cycle.
There's nothing wrong with sustainable growth, and that can even be a good thing. Honestly though, I won't credit a government for growth nor blame it for lack of growth since that is somewhat outside its control. I will hold a government responsible for sustainability though, whether it's paying its debts or growing it, pushing the Bank rate up or causing inflation. I will hold the government responsible for those things, but not growth per se.
That said, the government has some indirect control over growth such as by promoting an educated workforce, promoting more open borders, regulating responsibly, but all of that is more indirect or peripheral control over growth with the effects sometimes coming much later after the policy is set.
Yeah, we are sustainably growing everything else into extinction. Brilliant.
I don't hold gov't solely responsible either.
So? I have seen few gov't that do much of anything responsibly.
They can rejoice that the US under Obama and Co are projected to beat us.
Canada's Economic Growth No Longer Leads G7
The problem with education and opening borders is that the benefits usually don't bear fruit for sometimes decades later. Of what use is that if you're trying to get elected in 4 to 5 years?
So what. Is it sustainable growth or debt growth?
Also, consider the "poor" advantage in international trade. The poorer country can often undersell the competition:
U.S. cashing in on Canadian shoppers - Business - CBC News
So why would we want to borrow our way to prosperity while the US rides the coattails when we can have it the other way around.
I think this is where Paul martin was smart. His cuts caused a mini-recession in Canada, but since the world economy was doing well at the time, we could ride on teh world's coattails then. That was brilliant timing on his part.
I can agree to that. But at least he had the principle of reducing spending somewhat right. Harpo doesn't seem to even have that right.
Though I am happy he is cutting spending now. Last election I handed a blank ballot because I didn't think the others would be any better.
I can see the US growing faster than Canada - we tend to trade places every so often. Our dollar is at par more or less, but, if the price of commodities fall, then we'll be below par.