The economy in 2010

[Argus]

Again, how can this continue to grow indefinitely.

It can't. Unless our population continues to get larger, indefinitely, or our productivity continues to rise indefinitely, there has to be an end point.

[blueblood]

It can't. Unless our population continues to get larger, indefinitely, or our productivity continues to rise indefinitely, there has to be an end point.

except that canada is an export economy with our export markets getting richer and richer and are able to afford our goods in spite of a credit crunch. The Conference Board of Canada is now on board with the 2010 prediction. I'll take theirs and the Bank of Canada's word on that. As the world population grows and gets richer, the better off we are.

[Kitch]

except that canada is an export economy with our export markets getting richer and richer and are able to afford our goods in spite of a credit crunch. The Conference Board of Canada is now on board with the 2010 prediction. I'll take theirs and the Bank of Canada's word on that. As the world population grows and gets richer, the better off we are.

I think you're missing the word 'indefinite'. Argus and Eyeball said it best. The economy CAN'T grow forever because the Earth can't simply increase output. There is an endpoint. I'm not nearly qualified to guess at when that is, but I know for certain, as certain as I know anything, that there is an endpoint.

So why do we pretend that there is no endpoint? Sure people don't want to give up the comforts that we (in the minority of the world) enjoy but we cannot continue to grow the way we do now. So either we change something, or it will be changed for us.

We're in big trouble if this earns me the distinction of being a member of the infamous tin foil hat club.

[Mr.Canada]

I think you're missing the word 'indefinite'. Argus and Eyeball said it best. The economy CAN'T grow forever because the Earth can't simply increase output. There is an endpoint. I'm not nearly qualified to guess at when that is, but I know for certain, as certain as I know anything, that there is an endpoint.

So why do we pretend that there is no endpoint? Sure people don't want to give up the comforts that we (in the minority of the world) enjoy but we cannot continue to grow the way we do now. So either we change something, or it will be changed for us.

We're in big trouble if this earns me the distinction of being a member of the infamous tin foil hat club.

People who say that "got your tin foil hat ready" just say that because they cannot prove the point wrong and move to discredit the person.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The capitalistic system that we have created does not envision an endpoint dude. Its all about wealth creation, literally making something more from something less.

[normanchateau]

I don't really see any discussion value here as any argument cannot be disproved or proven.

Here's what can be proven:

In the first three budgets, program spending under the Harper's Conservatives is up $46.8 billion or about 29 per cent.

In other words, Harper is spending far more of our hard earned dollars than Martin did.

In addition, by cutting the GST, Harper has reduced government revenues.

The combination of spending more while cutting revenues is an incredibly stupid act going into a global recession and it's a stupid and short-sighted act even if there were no global recession. It makes no economic sense and it's certainly not what you'd expect of either a fiscal conservative or an economist.

Harper should have taken lessons from Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell. He made huge cuts to personal income tax rates such that BC now has the lowest personal income tax rates in Canada. But when he made his largest tax cuts, he simultaneously made large cuts in program spending. Campbell is a tight-fisted financial conservative who has no need to run deficit budgets. Harper, who can't control his spending, will soon be running budget deficits.

[eyeball]

Notice how Gordon Campbell also doesn't seem to have any over-riding propensity to beat the drum for certain ideological crusades or moral engineering. Perhaps social conservatism blunts the sort of clear-headed thinking one would normally expect from an economist, notwithstanding the fact economics appears to be more a faith than a science.

I'll really be impressed if Campbell gives us another kick at voting for proportional representation, I'd even consider voting for him if he does.

[normanchateau]

I'll really be impressed if Campbell gives us another kick at voting for proportional representation, I'd even consider voting for him if he does.

Unlike Harper, Campbell is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Too bad that there's no federal party leader who fits that description or at the very least, is perceived as such by most Canadians.

Apparently Campbell will give us another kick at the can in 2009 but I worry that he'll rig it so that (1) it will require far more than 50% approval and (2) will be rephrased in a way that won't receive sufficient approval from voters.

I think he was sincere when he first created a commission to look into proportional representation. He was probably motivated by the fact that Glen Clark got more seats than Campbell in an earlier election even though Campbell got a greater percentage of the vote. Now that he's in power, he understands fully that with proportional representation, he'd win more seats than the opposition but would not win a majority. The NDP and Greens would hold more than 50% of the seats.

I'm sure the BC NDP has the same reservations. They'll not win a majority of the seats with proportional representation but could win a majority again with the current system.

I certainly want to see proportional representation and voted for it in 2005.

[blueblood]

Here's what can be proven:

In the first three budgets, program spending under the Harper's Conservatives is up $46.8 billion or about 29 per cent.

In other words, Harper is spending far more of our hard earned dollars than Martin did.

In addition, by cutting the GST, Harper has reduced government revenues.

The combination of spending more while cutting revenues is an incredibly stupid act going into a global recession and it's a stupid and short-sighted act even if there were no global recession. It makes no economic sense and it's certainly not what you'd expect of either a fiscal conservative or an economist.

Harper should have taken lessons from Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell. He made huge cuts to personal income tax rates such that BC now has the lowest personal income tax rates in Canada. But when he made his largest tax cuts, he simultaneously made large cuts in program spending. Campbell is a tight-fisted financial conservative who has no need to run deficit budgets. Harper, who can't control his spending, will soon be running budget deficits.

Harper is a politician not a CEO, he has to spend money to get votes. And most of Harper's spending was to the provinces to get them up and running more smoothly. Martin would have spent the money that should have been going to the provinces and would spend it on pet projects and tuck it away in a piggy bank and we would be overtaxed. That's not fiscal conservatism, that's theft. What would Paul Martin be if he got elected and kept his promises, not a fiscal conservative that's for sure.

Gordon Campbell is taxing the bejesus out of BCers, they are paying more for things that they need. Unless they live in a log Cabin in the bush, they're getting hit with this tax and are not liking it. Gordon Campbell is not a fiscal conservative by bringing in an industry impeding carbon tax. Saying a carbon tax is good fiscal policy is ridiculous. The only reason a carbon tax has somewhat credibility is the alleged income tax cut that goes with it. It's been proven time and again on this forum that the carbon tax is poor policy and it was proven in the polls.

Harper's doing an adequate job with his economic policy. The Bank of Canada and the Conference Board figure we are going to weather this storm just fine.

[Mr.Canada]

I don't get it are these people socialists or conservatives?

You guys are complaining about his spending and tax cuts are acting more like conservatives that socialists so which is it?

So now the Liberal and NDP supporters want less spending and higher taxes. This is getting wierd.

[eyeball]

I don't get it are these people socialists or conservatives?

You guys are complaining about his spending and tax cuts are acting more like conservatives that socialists so which is it?

So now the Liberal and NDP supporters want less spending and higher taxes. This is getting wierd.

What part of conserve is it that conservatives don't get?

You know what's really wierd? When an individual spends less than he earns fiscal conservatives applaud them for their fiscal prudence. When a government takes in more than it spends however social conservatives freak out.

OTOH if a person only earns as much as they need conservatives boo them for being under-achievers. Notwithstanding this, they expect no less of the government.

[Kitch]

I find it interesting that the 'economists' out there avoid discussing major assumptions made by economists.

[normanchateau]

Harper is a politician not a CEO, he has to spend money to get votes.

All politicians have to spend money to get votes. However, Harper has increased spending by more than any PM in the history of Canada. It's now up 29% relative to when he took office.

When Harper spends more money than the Prime Minister he replaced, Harper supporters twist themselves into pretzels to rationalize his increased spending as evidence that Harper is a fiscal conservative.

[normanchateau]

You guys are complaining about his spending and tax cuts are acting more like conservatives that socialists so which is it?

More and more, Harper is acting like a socialist rather than a "conservative".

Those of us who are complaining about his huge increases in spending are fiscal conservatives.

Harper is a social conservative and his outrageous increases in spending are what "conservatives" expect of socialists.

[normanchateau]

And most of Harper's spending was to the provinces to get them up and running more smoothly.

You're partly right. Most of Harper's spending was to ONE province. Guess which one?

http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/03/b...ote-buying.html

In retrospect, I wonder if Harper supporters still think this was a good investment.

As I recall, when Harper decided to give Quebec another 4 billion dollars per year more than it was already receiving , Harper supporters thought this was a "brilliant" strategy.

So did Charest who shovelled it out to Quebecers in the form of tax cuts.

And Quebec will be getting that 4 billion more in 2009, 2010, 2011, ad nauseam. And when Canada goes into deficit, Harper will of course blame it on the global recession and not his multibillion dollar vote buying strategy.

[msj]

Apparently Campbell will give us another kick at the can in 2009 but I worry that he'll rig it so that (1) it will require far more than 50% approval and (2) will be rephrased in a way that won't receive sufficient approval from voters.

We do get another try at changing our provincial electoral system but it is the STV system that we get to vote for again.

As for Campbell rigging it, well, as in the last time we got to vote for it, it will require 60% or more support in 60% or more ridings. In 2005 it came up with about 57% support.

I believe that threshold was set by the committee that selected the STV system to be voted upon and it certainly seems like a reasonable threshold to meet before changing an election system.

[normanchateau]

We do get another try at changing our provincial electoral system but it is the STV system that we get to vote for again.

As for Campbell rigging it, well, as in the last time we got to vote for it, it will require 60% or more support in 60% or more ridings. In 2005 it came up with about 57% support.

I believe that threshold was set by the committee that selected the STV system to be voted upon and it certainly seems like a reasonable threshold to meet before changing an election system.

Thanks for the clarification and I hope it passes this time. If the federal system is ever to change, it will probably first require changes at the provincial level.

[eyeball]

We do get another try at changing our provincial electoral system but it is the STV system that we get to vote for again.

As for Campbell rigging it, well, as in the last time we got to vote for it, it will require 60% or more support in 60% or more ridings. In 2005 it came up with about 57% support.

I believe that threshold was set by the committee that selected the STV system to be voted upon and it certainly seems like a reasonable threshold to meet before changing an election system.

In retrospect I think there should have been a caveat to the threshold. If support stays within a certain range, I'd say above 55%, that the question should remain on our ballots. Kudos to Campbell for not just closing the case and saying that's that for another 100 years.