Canadian dollar likely to trump US greenback

[Smallc]

long way too go to catch up to Canada's debt to GDP Shady.

Wow, the CIA is full of crap. That number for Canada contains all levels of public debt (people rarely talk about non federal debt), and the number for the USA....isn't even close.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1151927220090611

Edited March 11, 2010 by Smallc

[Bonam]

Big news!

I know many people here will blame Harper. But it's not his fault. It's not anyone in Canada's fault. It's the fault of Barack Obama and his destructive economic policies, which are pushing the American dollar into the ground.

There isn't much we can do about it. Unless of course we want the federal government to mirror Obama's reckless record-setting deficit spending, as well as printing of money.

It's pretty hard to keep your home worth less than your neighbour's, when your neighbour is burning his down.

Fault? You say that like it's a bad thing. Screw Ontario manufacturing and the problems they might feel due to this, I'm really enjoying my high loonie.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Fault? You say that like it's a bad thing. Screw Ontario manufacturing and the problems they get feel due to this, I'm really enjoying my high loonie.

Yeah, screw the province that makes up something like 40% of the economy.

[punked]

Yeah, screw the province that makes up something like 40% of the economy.

New provinces (The west) will make up our economy don't worry about it.

[Smallc]

I'd rather that didn't happen.....and it won't happen.

[Wilber]

That ain't the point. The price of oil per barrel is pegged in US $$...a higher |CDN $ means lower relative cost per barrel in CDN....

I know but many of our governments will fix that.

[Smallc]

Gas prices in Canada really aren't that high. They are higher than those in the US, but they aren't that high.

[Bonam]

Yeah, screw the province that makes up something like 40% of the economy.

I don't really care about this abstract concept of "the economy". Rather, I care about the impact of the cost of the Canadian dollar on my own life and finances. In my case, a high Canadian dollar makes paying for goods and services in the US, while I am getting my PhD here, using my Canadian savings and income, substantially easier.

When I was planning out my finances for grad school and the Canadian dollar was at like 0.80 US things were looking tight, now, instead, I have a nice cushion.

[blueblood]

I'd rather that didn't happen.....and it won't happen.

Why do you think us westerners should be impoverished?

Do you think we should be always going to Ottawa hat in hand?

Do you think that other people owe you services and money?

Central Canada built their economy from the time of confederation until now on a house of cards, and its only a matter of time until it comes crashing down...

[Smallc]

I don't really care about this abstract concept of "the economy".

The health of the Canadian economy is not an abstract concept. The health of the Canadian economy has a direct impact on everyone in Canada.

When I was planning out my finances for grad school and the Canadian dollar was at like 0.80 US things were looking tight, now, instead, I have a nice cushion.

Life isn't all about you.

[Smallc]

Why do you think us westerners should be impoverished?

I didn't say that, but I'd rather not see Toronto and Montreal, both important Canadian cities on the world stage, crumble. That doesn't mean that cities like Calgary and Edmonton can't also be important and wealthy.

Do you think we should be always going to Ottawa hat in hand?

Do you think that other people owe you services and money?

Me? Where would you get that idea?

Central Canada built their economy from the time of confederation until now on a house of cards, and its only a matter of time until it comes crashing down...

That's such a bunch of bull. The financial sector is not a house of cards. The aerospace industry is not a house of cards. RIM is not a house of cards. Mining companies are not houses of cards....etc etc etc.

There's the main reason I wouldn't want westerners to gain too much power. Some of us are far too bitter and self centred.

[Bonam]

Life isn't all about you.

No, just my life. Looks like even in this unrelated topic we're back to the collectivist versus the individualist debate...

My point is simple, when the Canadian dollar goes up, it benefits me. Hence, to me, a rising Canadian dollar is a good thing. A falling Canadian dollar would be bad and I would have to take steps to adapt (such as converting my money to USD before the CAD fell too far). Similarly, if others are instead being negatively impacted by the rise of the Canadian dollar, they would also have to adapt. Oh, and you can be sure I'm not the only one benefiting from a rising dollar.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

No, just my life. Looks like even in this unrelated topic we're back to the collectivist versus the individualist viewpoint...

...that's why we have handguns.

[Bonam]

...that's why we have handguns.

Not sure I follow.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not sure I follow.

...to shoot the collectivists.

[Bonam]

I guess. Only if they try to take your property though, not just to end the debate ;p

[blueblood]

I didn't say that, but I'd rather not see Toronto and Montreal, both important Canadian cities on the world stage, crumble. That doesn't mean that cities like Calgary and Edmonton can't also be important and wealthy.

So because the west will have economic relevance, Toronto and Montreal would crumble? You plainly said yourself you didn't want the west making up most of our economy. Why? Why isn't the west allowed to succeed in your eyes? Why must we be a subordinate to central Canada?

Me? Where would you get that idea?

Your devotion to the equalization program, and your collectivist mentallity.

That's such a bunch of bull. The financial sector is not a house of cards. The aerospace industry is not a house of cards. RIM is not a house of cards. Mining companies are not houses of cards....etc etc etc.

Central Canada has long been protected by policies that have favored central canada to western canada. the high tariffs for the greater part of the 20th century protecting their industries, to the supply management system that is bogging down WTO negotiations. Then we have the CRTC and their ludicrous cell phone regulations. The large taxes and large gov't expenditures. The truth is had Western Canada had the same advantages Central Canada had in the 20th century, there would be more parity between the two regions. The proof is in the pudding with this economic shock, western Canada is faring far better than central canada because our economy is more self sufficient than central canada's.

There's the main reason I wouldn't want westerners to gain too much power. Some of us are far too bitter and self centred.

So? Some would argue that power has gone to central Canada's heads. The sooner people realize that the regions of Canada are different and have their own interests, the sooner we will have a federal gov't enacting policy that reflects that, which would be helpful for national unity instead of hindering it.

[Smallc]

The sooner people realize that the regions of Canada are different and have their own interests, the sooner we will have a federal gov't enacting policy that reflects that, which would be helpful for national unity instead of hindering it.

And how exactly would you propose we enact policies for each reason? That would imply that we'd no longer be one country. The reality is, most bitterness in Canada comes from one place now. It's getting rather annoying. The west acts like its so hard done by. It's not, and we need to start whining over spilt milk.

And yes, I am a collectivist and I am devoted to what is probably one of the smartest programs in this country that ensures that we all have equal starting opportunities.

Oh, and take off the tinfoil hat. There has been a lot of help fro the west by the federal government, and that help continues through tax rebates for oil sands projects.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Smallc

[blueblood]

And how exactly would you propose we enact policies for each reason? That would imply that we'd no longer be one country. The reality is, most bitterness in Canada comes from one place now. It's getting rather annoying. The west acts like its so hard done by. It's not, and we need to start whining over spilt milk.

Lets look at the EU for example. We have Sweden and we have Ireland. Two opposites, yet they are both functioning members of the EU, they mind their own business they do their own thing, but stand united when it comes to the EU. By your logic, the EU should have failed because each of those countries belonging to a massive organization is so different and looks after their own self interests.

You sir need to catch up on your readings of the Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien governments and the policies they enacted. Who benefitted the most out of those policies at the expense of the other?

And yes, I am a collectivist and I am devoted to what is probably one of the smartest programs in this country that ensures that we all have equal starting opportunities.

Your idea of equalness is taking from somebody and giving it to somebody else. You believe everyone should end up equal. I on the other hand believe we start of equal and some people end up further ahead than others. Quebec has your attitude and is one of the most indebted jurisictions in the free world, Alberta has the opposite attitude and is debt free.

Oh, and take off the tinfoil hat. There has been a lot of help fro the west by the federal government, and that help continues through tax rebates for oil sands projects

And there has been lots of help from Alberta so Quebec can have its house of cards. Tax rebates aren't "help", they are allowing companies to keep more of the money they earn, not by having other provinces fork out dollars to fund things.

I'll put this to you again...

So because the west will have economic relevance, Toronto and Montreal would crumble? You plainly said yourself you didn't want the west making up most of our economy. Why? Why isn't the west allowed to succeed in your eyes? Why must we be a subordinate to central Canada?

Edited March 11, 2010 by blueblood

[Smallc]

Lets look at the EU for example. We have Sweden and we have Ireland. Two opposites, yet they are both functioning members of the EU, they mind their own business they do their own thing, but stand united when it comes to the EU. By your logic, the EU should have failed because each of those countries belonging to a massive organization is so different and looks after their own self interests.

I don't want to look to the EU as an example, because the EU isn't a country; Canada is.

You sir need to catch up on your readings of the Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien governments and the policies they enacted. Who benefitted the most out of those policies at the expense of the other?

Maybe you need to read that. Under Chretien, the entire country's economy expended by massive amounts. Alberta's GDP is now over 80K per person. They certainly didn't suffer under that.

Your idea of equalness is taking from somebody and giving it to somebody else. You believe everyone should end up equal. I on the other hand believe we start of equal and some people end up further ahead than others.

And your idea is a fallacy. There cannot be equality of opportunity without some kind of intervention when you have one province sitting on nothing but red dirt and another sitting on the second largest crude reserve on earth. This is a country for all Canadians, and that is the purpose of equalization.

Quebec has your attitude and is one of the most indebted jurisictions in the free world, Alberta has the opposite attitude and is debt free.

I'm not going through that again. We (should) all know why Alberta does so well. It's black, and in their case, mostly trapped in sand.

And there has been lots of help from Alberta so Quebec can have its house of cards. Tax rebates aren't "help", they are allowing companies to keep more of the money they earn, not by having other provinces fork out dollars to fund things.

On the other hand, those targeted tax breaks that benefit only one province come at the expense of every other province. I suppose favouritism is only good when it agrees with your ideology.

I'll put this to you again...

So because the west will have economic relevance, Toronto and Montreal would crumble?

No, and I didn't say that. I would rather that the east not become weak. I would rather that all areas of the country prosper to the best of their ability and that all areas that need help should get it.

You plainly said yourself you didn't want the west making up most of our economy. Why? Why isn't the west allowed to succeed in your eyes? Why must we be a subordinate to central Canada?

I didn't say that. He said that that west would make up our economy, implying that the east was going to decline significantly. I'd rather that didn't happen.

[blueblood]

I don't want to look to the EU as an example, because the EU isn't a country; Canada is.

Why not? It's a collective of jurisdictions, just as Canada is. The fact that we're comparing provinces to countries is a wash when we're looking at them as pieces of a larger entity.

Maybe you need to read that. Under Chretien, the entire country's economy expended by massive amounts. Alberta's GDP is now over 80K per person. They certainly didn't suffer under that.

Thanks to Mulroney's economic policies, if only he didnt piss around with the charter and screwed winnipeg out of that F-18 factory.

And your idea is a fallacy. There cannot be equality of opportunity without some kind of intervention when you have one province sitting on nothing but red dirt and another sitting on the second largest crude reserve on earth. This is a country for all Canadians, and that is the purpose of equalization.

That province that is Red Dirt was a far wealthier place than Alberta was in the early days of Confederation. It's not like these places were poor forever. Then the province that's sitting on Red Dirt should know it can't afford to provide services that others can. Albertan's aren't entitled to cheap lobster and potatoes the same as PEIers aren't entitled to cheap gas and cheap steak. Every Canadian born starts out the same, just because some piss away their chance doesn't mean others have to pitch in, and before you bring up the fact that poor people need rich people's money to get by, there are many immigrants that came to Canada and worked their buts off so they weren't poor anymore. As I've always said, you want people to become equal, i say people start out equal.

I'm not going through that again. We (should) all know why Alberta does so well. It's black, and in their case, mostly trapped in sand.

Funny, there are other places that sit on oil and other "gold mines" and they're dirt poor. Welcome to management. When the oil prices dropped Klien was blowing up hospitals and Quebec was going deeper into debt. Alberta properly manages the resources it has, central canada does not. Boo hoo.

On the other hand, those targeted tax breaks that benefit only one province come at the expense of every other province. I suppose favouritism is only good when it agrees with your ideology.

What expense would that be, so other provinces can't spend money on things they can't afford? That's weak. Allowing wealthier people to keep more of what they own is of a greater help to an economy than snatching it away to bring people to a common denominator. Society as a whole suffers because of this. Would you support taking your family's life savings and pumping it into a relative's failing business? Because that is what your clearly advocating with equalization.

No, and I didn't say that. I would rather that the east not become weak. I would rather that all areas of the country prosper to the best of their ability and that all areas that need help should get it.

I didn't say that. He said that that west would make up our economy, implying that the east was going to decline significantly. I'd rather that didn't happen.

He said the west was going to have a bigger piece of the pie, he didn't say the east was going down the tubes. You clearly don't want the west to have a bigger stake in the Canadian economy than the east why?

[Smallc]

Why not? It's a collective of jurisdictions, just as Canada is. The fact that we're comparing provinces to countries is a wash when we're looking at them as pieces of a larger entity.

It's not at all the same thing.

Thanks to Mulroney's economic policies, if only he didnt piss around with the charter and screwed winnipeg out of that F-18 factory.

Yes, Mulroney.... Nice revisionist history.

That province that is Red Dirt was a far wealthier place than Alberta was in the early days of Confederation.

You do realize which province I'm talking about, right?

It's not like these places were poor forever.

And they aren't poor now. There is no poor jurisdiction in Canada. There are some that are more wealthy, and Equalization ensures we all enjoy the benefits.

Funny, there are other places that sit on oil and other "gold mines" and they're dirt poor. Welcome to management. When the oil prices dropped Klien was blowing up hospitals and Quebec was going deeper into debt. Alberta properly manages the resources it has, central canada does not. Boo hoo.

Alberta spends so much money it isn't even funny. Some economists have been saying for years that they were managing things badly...and it turned out those people were right. Oil will save them again, but eventually, the piper will have to be paid. They are doing a relatively good job, but they have to rein in spending. Oh, and I'm glad you agree that Canada has had good management allowing it to prosper.

What expense would that be, so other provinces can't spend money on things they can't afford? That's weak. Allowing wealthier people to keep more of what they own is of a greater help to an economy than snatching it away to bring people to a common denominator. Society as a whole suffers because of this. Would you support taking your family's life savings and pumping it into a relative's failing business? Because that is what your clearly advocating with equalization.

That's not what I'm advocating at all. We aren't talking about business, we're talking about a country, and you don't seem to see the difference. Provinces aren't simply going to be allowed to fail.

He said the west was going to have a bigger piece of the pie, he didn't say the east was going down the tubes. You clearly don't want the west to have a bigger stake in the Canadian economy than the east why?

Because I want all areas of the country to continue to succeed, and I'm tired of your type of attitude that puts down everything east of Saskatchewan.

And that's not what I read. We were talking about Ontario going down because of a dollar that was too high (they wouldn't go down, but they would have difficulties). He said the west would make up for that. I'd rather that didn't have to happen because, as Charles Adler would say, I love the entire country. I get tired of petty regional bickering. I realize it's a part of Confederation, but I'm certainly not going to take part in it or encourage it.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Smallc

[blueblood]

It's not at all the same thing.

For the purposes of this exercise, they are.

Yes, Mulroney.... Nice revisionist history.

NAFTA check.

You do realize which province I'm talking about, right?

That would be PEI, and what was Alberta in the 1870's, nothing. I'd say PEI was better off than the landmass that would be Alberta was.

And they aren't poor now. There is no poor jurisdiction in Canada. There are some that are more wealthy, and Equalization ensures we all enjoy the benefits.

Some enjoy benefits at the cost of other's success, that's not equalization that's boderline theft.

Alberta spends so much money it isn't even funny. Some economists have been saying for years that they were managing things badly...and it turned out those people were right. Oil will save them again, but eventually, the piper will have to be paid. They are doing a relatively good job, but they have to rein in spending. Oh, and I'm glad you agree that Canada has had good management allowing it to prosper.

Yet Alberta stays out of debt. Some economists have been saying for years that Quebec manages things worse. Alberta paid the piper in the 80's and 90's. Quebec hasn't. One province is mired in debt, one isn't. Sounds like sound financial management to me.

That's not what I'm advocating at all. We aren't talking about business, we're talking about a country, and you don't seem to see the difference. Provinces aren't simply going to be allowed to fail.

And because of that, those provinces that succeed are hindered because of it.

Because I want all areas of the country to continue to succeed, and I'm tired of your type of attitude that puts down everything east of Saskatchewan.

And I'm tired of your type of attitude that everything west of manitoba has a duty to be subordinate to central canada and has to pay the price because it manages its natural, financial, and labour resources better than the rest of Canada.

And that's not what I read. We were talking about Ontario going down because of a dollar that was too high (they wouldn't go down, but they would have difficulties). He said the west would make up for that. I'd rather that didn't have to happen because, as Charles Adler would say, I love the entire country. I get tired of petty regional bickering. I realize it's a part of Confederation, but I'm certainly not going to take part in it or encourage it.

Why shouldn't the West make up for Ontario's slack? Why should the west not be allowed to overtake central canada as the economic powerhouse of the country?

And the bickering stops when the hands come out of the pocket and an acceptance is assured that regions are different. We as people accept that there are many different ethnic groups of Canadians and we don't go and raid each other's bank accounts, why should regions be any different?

Edited March 11, 2010 by blueblood

[Smallc]

For the purposes of this exercise, they are.

They aren't for any exercise.

NAFTA check.

Yes, and eliminating the deficit and tying federal income tax brackets to inflation had nothing to do with it.

That would be PEI, and what was Alberta in the 1870's, nothing. I'd say PEI was better off than the landmass that would be Alberta was.

There was barely anyone in Alberta in 1870. The oil was still there, it just had to be found.

Some enjoy benefits at the cost of other's success, that's not equalization that's boderline theft.

That's not true at all. No person or region in Canada is kept from succeeding.

Yet Alberta stays out of debt. Some economists have been saying for years that Quebec manages things worse. Alberta paid the piper in the 80's and 90's. Quebec hasn't. One province is mired in debt, one isn't. Sounds like sound financial management to me.

There's no question that Quebec is worse off than Alberta, but I can't help but wonder what their situations would be if the oil was under northern Quebec.

And because of that, those provinces that succeed are hindered because of it.

No they aren't. They lose a few billion dollars out of their economy. Those dollars stay within Canada....remember that place?

And I'm tired of your type of attitude that everything west of manitoba has a duty to be subordinate to central canada and has to pay the price because it manages its natural, financial, and labour resources better than the rest of Canada.

I don't have that attitude, but that is going to be reality for a long time. No matter where the money comes from, the people live in Quebec, Ontario, and the lower mainland of BC, and those areas don't necessarily agree with the policy of Alberta.

Why shouldn't the West make up for Ontario's slack? Why should the west not be allowed to overtake central canada as the economic powerhouse of the country?

I don't want Ontario to have any slack. I want them to recover (they already are recovering). You don't seem to want that.

And the bickering stops when the hands come out of the pocket and an acceptance is assured that regions are different.

First, the hand is also in the pockets of now 2 eastern provinces, and second, the acceptance of regional variation has exited since Confederation. That's why we have very powerful provinces.

We as people accept that there are many different ethnic groups of Canadians and we don't go and raid each other's bank accounts, why should regions be any different?

Provinces aren't people.

[blueblood]

They aren't for any exercise.

Sure

Yes, and eliminating the deficit and tying federal income tax brackets to inflation had nothing to do with it.

Not to mention the "tax hike" of raiding EI and CPP while we're at it.

There was barely anyone in Alberta in 1870. The oil was still there, it just had to be found.

That oil is worthless if it can't be exploited, ask Danny Williams.

That's not true at all. No person or region in Canada is kept from succeeding.

Alberta is kept from making more money. Instead of Albertans getting billions in tax breaks, they hand out money elsewhere. That's madness

There's no question that Quebec is worse off than Alberta, but I can't help but wonder what their situations would be if the oil was under northern Quebec.

Not as good as Alberta, because the way Quebecers spend money they'd be in much worse shape if the price of oil drops.

No they aren't. They lose a few billion dollars out of their economy. Those dollars stay within Canada....remember that place?

In other words those provinces that succeed are still hindered. That few billion could be used for tax cuts and (shudder) services, but somebody has their hands in the pocket.

I don't have that attitude, but that is going to be reality for a long time. No matter where the money comes from, the people live in Quebec, Ontario, and the lower mainland of BC, and those areas don't necessarily agree with the policy of Alberta.

Judging by your posts I beg to differ. As for people not agreeing with Alberta, that's obvious. Albertan's don't care if people don't agree with them, Albertan's don't feel the need to meddle in other provinces coffers, however some provinces do. Those that don't agree with the monetary policy of Alberta yet have their hands out are hypocrites.

I don't want Ontario to have any slack. I want them to recover (they already are recovering). You don't seem to want that.

Whether Ontario recovers or not is not my problem. I believe if they do recover, they should be entitled to keep their money, and should as it would be incentive for them to quit meddling in the west's affairs (I.e. CWB, and gun control to name a few)

First, the hand is also in the pockets of now 2 eastern provinces, and second, the acceptance of regional variation has exited since Confederation. That's why we have very powerful provinces.

Not powerful enough (i.e. equalization)

Provinces aren't people.

Provinces can learn from people. Nice double standard.