Canadian economy still showing strong growth

[Locutus]

Consumer spending rises

Last Updated: Friday, August 31, 2007 | 3:31 PM ET

CBC News

Economic growth in the second quarter topped forecasts as consumer spending picked up steam, Statistics Canada said Friday.
The country's GDP rose at an annual rate of 3.4 per cent in the April-to-June period, beating the consensus of 2.8 per cent.
"Consumers opened their pocketbooks to finance a surge in purchases of goods, notably motor vehicles, household appliances and recreational, sporting and camping equipment," Statistics Canada said in a morning release. "Retail sales were particularly strong in May."
Consumer spending was powered by income gains, the agency said.
The Q2 growth figure represented a slight easing from the revised 3.9 per cent rate in the first quarter.
Some analysts said that pace of growth won't continue.

"There are numerous signs pointing to a slower pace in the second half," said CIBC World Markets economist Avery Shenfeld.
"Not only did growth decelerate in June and hiring slow in July, but August saw the bulk of the global credit squeeze."
On a month-over-month basis, GDP rose by 0.2 per cent in June, easing slightly from May's 0.3 per cent rise. Economists had expected no June increase.
"This points to better-than-expected momentum for the economy heading into the second half of the year," said BMO Capital Markets economist Doug Porter in a commentary.
"Still, we look for GDP growth to cool to below a 2.5 per cent pace in the second half."
Despite increases in mortgage rates, Canadians continued to plow money into their homes. Residential construction spending surged at an annual rate of 5.2 per cent.
Business investment also bounced back from a weak first quarter, as firms added to inventories and invested in machinery and equipment.
Exports — which were expected to drop with the higher Canadian dollar — actually rose at a faster pace than in the first quarter, led by exports of oil and gas shipments.



http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/08/31/gdp.html

 

[YoungJoonKim]

I heard banks are still making profits...just not record profits..
it must be tragic day for them, no record profit?!?!!

 

[CDNBear]

Not surprising though...The economy always works when the medicine is holding office...

 

[Baxter Basics]

Exponential growth

"The greatest failing of the human race is its failure to understand the exponential function" - Dr. Albert Bartlett

http://www.webpotential.com/ambiente/exponential_growth.htm

The absolute folly of the constant requirement for our economy to keep growing is unsustainable, irresponsible, and illogical.

The most important foundation of all our problems is exponential growth in human population and resource use. In "The Ecology of Commerce", Paul Hawken states, "The problems to be faced are vast and complex, but come down to this: 5.5 billion people are breeding exponentially. The process of fulfilling their wants and needs is stripping the earth of its biotic capacity to produce life; a climactic bust of consumption by a single species is overwhelming the skies, earth, waters, and fauna" (xii). Hawken relates this to business practices by showing that business relies on and creates unsustainable growth. Hawken seeks to answer, as did the United Steelworkers of America (USWA) Task Force on Environment, "What kind of jobs will be possible in a world of depleted resources, poisoned water and foul air, a world where ozone depletion and greenhouse warming make it difficult even to survive." (USWA 14).

 

[Toro]

This was an argument made by Thomas Malthus c1802. It was wrong then and its wrong now.

As populations reach a certain level, growth in population is not only no longer exponential, it turns negative as the birth rate is insufficient to keep up with the rate of death, as is occurring right now in the industrialized world. Second, technological advancement continues to increase productivity, so that we produce something like 50x more food now than we did 100 years ago on the same arable land.

 

[s243a]

"The greatest failing of the human race is its failure to understand the exponential function" - Dr. Albert Bartlett

http://www.webpotential.com/ambiente/exponential_growth.htm

The absolute folly of the constant requirement for our economy to keep growing is unsustainable, irresponsible, and illogical.

The most important foundation of all our problems is exponential growth in human population and resource use. In "The Ecology of Commerce", Paul Hawken states, "The problems to be faced are vast and complex, but come down to this: 5.5 billion people are breeding exponentially. The process of fulfilling their wants and needs is stripping the earth of its biotic capacity to produce life; a climactic bust of consumption by a single species is overwhelming the skies, earth, waters, and fauna" (xii). Hawken relates this to business practices by showing that business relies on and creates unsustainable growth. Hawken seeks to answer, as did the United Steelworkers of America (USWA) Task Force on Environment, "What kind of jobs will be possible in a world of depleted resources, poisoned water and foul air, a world where ozone depletion and greenhouse warming make it difficult even to survive." (USWA 14).

Spare me the debunked 19th century philosophy :roll:

"Cornucopian
Some 19th century economists believed that improvements in the division and specialization of labor, increased capital investment, and other factors had rendered some of Malthus's warnings implausible. In the absence of any improvement in technology or increase of capital equipment, an increased supply of labor may have a synergistic effect on productivity that overcomes the law of diminishing returns. As American land economist Henry George observed with characteristic piquancy in dismissing Malthus, "Both the jayhawk and the man eat chickens; but the more jayhawks, the fewer chickens, while the more men, the more chickens." Many 20th century economists, such as Julian Lincoln Simon, have also criticised Malthus's conclusions. They note that despite the predictions of Malthus and the Neo-Malthusians, massive geometric population growth in the 20th century has not resulted in a Malthusian catastrophe, largely due to the influence of technological advances and the expansion of the market economy, division of labor, and stock of capital goods. Such arguments are echoed by skeptical environmentalist, Bjørn Lomborg. Malthus is thus regarded by some such as British physicist John Maddox as a failed prophet of doom.
It should be noted that between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%. The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon fueled irrigation.[3]
David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, and Mario Giampietro, senior researcher at the National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), place in theirs study Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million. To achieve a sustainable economy and avert disaster, the United States must reduce its population by at least one-third, and world population will have to be reduced by two-thirds, says study.[4]
The authors of this study believe that the mentioned agricultural crisis will only begin to impact us after 2020, and will not become critical until 2050. The oncoming peaking of global oil production (and subsequent decline of production), along with the peak of North American natural gas production will very likely precipitate this agricultural crisis much sooner than expected. Geologist Dale Allen Pfeiffer claims that coming decades could see spiraling food prices without relief and massive starvation on a global level such as never experienced before. [5][6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus

 

[s243a]

This was an argument made by Thomas Malthus c1802. It was wrong then and its wrong now.

As populations reach a certain level, growth in population is not only no longer exponential, it turns negative as the birth rate is insufficient to keep up with the rate of death, as is occurring right now in the industrialized world. Second, technological advancement continues to increase productivity, so that we produce something like 50x more food now than we did 100 years ago on the same arable land.

lol you beat me to that argument by 2 minutes.