2010s to be Canada's Decade

[Smallc]

This may be Canada’s decade, according to a new report by CIBC, predicting the country is likely to lead growth in the G7 for the next ten years if it plays its cards right.

Relatively lower government and corporate debt, immigration and trade balances mean it’s Canada’s “time to shine,” a report by CIBC World Markets Inc released Friday said.

Mounting debt troubles in Europe and geopolitical tensions in Asia have grabbed headlines in recent weeks.

It’s not that Canada will benefit from others’ malaise because of a weakening in any part of the world is still a negative for every other country in terms of exports, Avery Shenfeld, CIBC chief economist, told QMI Agency.

“It’s more that when we look at who’s going to do better over the medium term, we have some advantages in terms of not having as many problems as they do.”

Article by Stefania Moretti

More good news overall, though it does bother me that the prediction is being put forward by CIBC, who I find to be consistently wrong.

[bjre]

“It’s more that when we look at who’s going to do better over the medium term, we have some advantages in terms of not having as many problems as they do.”

Things still exist when a blind man can not see.

They only mean Canada is better positioned than its debt-laden counterparts.

Canadians Tops In Household Debt

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16388

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has put into motion a plan to reign in spending with the hope of all but reducing Canada’s debt from $53 billion in 2010 to less than $2 billion by 2015.

Did not see his detail plan. Some politicians just give promise that never fulfills it. Have no idea if he belong to that kind or not.

[Shady]

I agree with the assessment. While other countries are having to fundamentally restructure their societies, with large increases of taxes. Canada is positioned to be in a great situation for the next several years. We should be able to attract a lot of foreign investment too.

[myata]

More good news overall, though it does bother me that the prediction is being put forward by CIBC, who I find to be consistently wrong.

Sure it'd be good to find some extra dough in our pockets, but aren't we just going to spend it all on useless trivial things, such as SUV, cottages, oilsands and the like? And on the other side: university tuition going up, heathcare crisis looming, modern social infrastructure nowhere in sight, green economy, forget it. International standing - who cares. So calling it "Canada's Decade", not so sure. Would anybody even notice?

[Shady]

Sure it'd be good to find some extra dough in our pockets, but aren't we just going to spend it all on useless trivial things, such as SUV, cottages, oilsands and the like?

Cottages and SUVs are useless? How so? And who are you to tell somebody they shouldn't buy or build a cottage? And oilsands don't cost money, it provides money. You know, for all of that health care, tuition you're talking about.

And on the other side: university tuition going up, heathcare crisis looming, modern social infrastructure nowhere in sight, green economy, forget it.

Costs of everything go up. Always have, always will. That's part of growing economies, rising wages, supply and demand. But I'm not exactly sure what "modern social infrastructure" refers to. I'm also not sure what a green economy is. I want a strong economy, regardless of the colour!

[myata]

Yes that's exactly it. Canada's prosperity will result mostly in self gratification with little impact on social infrastructure or international standing of the country. So why would anybody (but currency speculators) bother noticing? Especially to the extend of calling it That?

[Moonbox]

More good news overall, though it does bother me that the prediction is being put forward by CIBC, who I find to be consistently wrong.

Hmmm....I don't mean to be particularly offensive but sometimes I wonder how much you really know about economics. The above comment really puts it into question considering:

Avery Shenfeld is a Managing Director and Chief Economist with the

wholesale banking arm of CIBC, having been with the firm since 1993.

He holds a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University. Avery follows

economic developments and their implications for financial markets. He

was recently named by Bloomberg as one of the top five forecasters of

the US economy in the past two years, is a two time winner of Dow-Jones

Market Watchs award for most accurate US forecaster, and has been

ranked by fixed income investors among the leading five economists in

Canada.

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/AveryShenfeld.pdf

Edited May 28, 2010 by Moonbox

[Shady]

Yes that's exactly it. Canada's prosperity will result mostly in self gratification with little impact on social infrastructure

Could you please explain modern social infrastructure?

There's nothing wrong with Canada prospering from some self-gratification. And it's sad that we're constantly preached to as if it needs to be condemned. There's nothing wrong with someone wanting to own a cottage. One of the greatest joys of life is to watch the sun set over a lake on a cottage deck or patio. After all, people need to build those cottages. And people need to manufacture the materials in order to build it. It's called a vibrant economy. That provides jobs to people. Your argument against this makes absolutely no sense.

[williat]

I cannot even fathom why anyone would see this as a bad thing, growth in the economy benefits everyone, sure maybe we all start spending more but that’s because there is more disposable capital around. Whether we like to admit it or not we got by relatively unscathed in the entire economic crisis, we seem to have the proper system in place to do even better. This is not to say that improvements cannot be made, namely making university more affordable, upgrading our health care system (wait times & doctor shortages), infrastructure and reducing debt…it may sound like a lot but that’s what we elect these people to figure out, how to make it all happen according to plan. And it appears they have set us on a decent path, now let’s pray it continues.

[wyly]

I don't think we're out of economic danger yet, the financial/euro problems of europe could still cause problems for every country....

[Smallc]

Hmmm....I don't mean to be particularly offensive but sometimes I wonder how much you really know about economics.

CIBC, from what I've observed, has more of a tendency to be wrong than the other banks, in particular, TD and RBC. I simply made an observations. Perhaps consistently was simply too strong a word. They seem to be wrong more often, in my experience. Better?

[dre]

Im not suprised by this... Canada has been the best run Country in the G8 for well over a decade.

[Smallc]

Im not suprised by this... Canada has been the best run Country in the G8 for well over a decade.

I would certainly agree with that assessment. This page shows part of the picture. Canada and it's provinces have been able to increase spending, reduce debt, and lower taxes from 1995 going forward to today. Only now have a few provinces had to raise taxes, and only by a very small amount in relative terms. This is at the same time as the federal government is still able to reduce taxes and increase spending while shrinking a deficit that was only very slightly a result of Canadian government actions, if at all.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Smallc

[Borg]

When non-quota holding farmers can make a living then and only then will I believe we are doing well

Borg

[myata]

I would certainly agree with that assessment.

And I'll reserve my judgement till having lived through Canada'Decade. The trick is to have great economy and social progress. Yet there hasn't been a single new social program in this country for decades. Cities are struggling with maintaining infrustructure, forget expanding it. University tuition, public transit, social programs including activity / recreation all going up. Anybody can eat cake while it keeps coming but let's just see when we get there, I'll be the first to cheer.

This is at the same time as the federal government is still able to reduce taxes and increase spending while shrinking a deficit that was only very slightly a result of Canadian government actions, if at all.

Could it be though that deficit was the result of reduction in taxes (as that smartwitted reduction of GST, one of the more stable sources of revenue right on the brink of the recession), and out of control government spending? Because wasn't it just over a year back when we were in a multi-year surplus?

[Borg]

Myata

Cut out the bull schitte in government and you can cut taxes to the hilt.

Cut out the handouts to the international community and you can cut taxes.

Cut off aide to Africa and places like that and you can reduce taxes. Africa is a cesspool at best anyways.

Cut off aide to those coming here to Canada - come self supporting or screw off. Other countries do it so can we.

Cut out the entitled politician expenses and you can reduce taxes.

Toss the Senate and you can reduce taxes.

There are dozens more potentials - but Canucklehead decay has set in.

I am tired of people talking about the GST / HST being lowered as a major part of the problem.

We should not have it at all.

There is plenty of room if someone would have the balls to do the job and then stand up to the maelstrom of media and "entitled" Canucklehead outrage.

Anyone who bitches about the deficit because certain taxes have been lowered does not have a clear picture of the waste. You seem to be one of those.

Borg

Edited May 28, 2010 by Borg

[Wild Bill]

I can't help but think that "2010 to be Canada's Decade" is just "rah rah" spin.

I have heard that exact same prediction since I was a lad in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000 and now in 2010. At the start of every new decade some politician makes this prediction and everyone stands around beaming at each other.

By itself, the prediction really doesn't mean anything, one way or the other. It's just another "Go Team! Give it one for the Gipper" inspirational cliche.

[wyly]

I can't help but think that "2010 to be Canada's Decade" is just "rah rah" spin.

I have heard that exact same prediction since I was a lad in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000 and now in 2010. At the start of every new decade some politician makes this prediction and everyone stands around beaming at each other.

By itself, the prediction really doesn't mean anything, one way or the other. It's just another "Go Team! Give it one for the Gipper" inspirational cliche.

yup, same when I was kid in school being told Canada was the breadbasket of the world, propaganda poo...the truth is we're only in the G8 because the USA wanted us there...these kind of announcements are political spin for the government and to calm the domestic market...

[Smallc]

The 90s and 2000s were exce3llent decades for Canada. Our standard of living before taxes is now higher than the US. It soon will be after taxes. Our per capita GDP, though still lower than theirs, is growing at about trwice the rate. Our productivity is finally increasing, and hopefully that contiues. We have lower debt and lower taxes. This really should be a good decade for Canada.

[wyly]

The 90s and 2000s were exce3llent decades for Canada. Our standard of living before taxes is now higher than the US. It soon will be after taxes. Our per capita GDP, though still lower than theirs, is growing at about trwice the rate. Our productivity is finally increasing, and hopefully that contiues. We have lower debt and lower taxes. This really should be a good decade for Canada.

which may happen but calling the 2010's Canada's decade is jingoistic there will be other countries that do as well and better...

[Jack Weber]

The 90s and 2000s were exce3llent decades for Canada. Our standard of living before taxes is now higher than the US. It soon will be after taxes. Our per capita GDP, though still lower than theirs, is growing at about trwice the rate. Our productivity is finally increasing, and hopefully that contiues. We have lower debt and lower taxes. This really should be a good decade for Canada.

Really???

Wages have remained essentially stagnant for almost 30 years when inflation is taken into account.

I agree we are in better shape than many other countries,but it's relative success.

[williat]

Really???

Wages have remained essentially stagnant for almost 30 years when inflation is taken into account.

I agree we are in better shape than many other countries,but it's relative success.

But we more relatively more successful then most countries then, even that sounds pretty good.

[Keepitsimple]

Here's one of the big reasons why we'll have a big advantage.....as long as the Liberals and NDP don't get in as a coalition:

Europe's easy days are over

These days the news from Europe could scarcely be worse. Actually, it almost certainly will get worse.

Today's crisis, starting in Greece and spreading out over most of the European Union, will get solved all right. The Europeans are pretty smart and very experienced and they've come through worse crises — two world wars — before.

Beyond this crisis, though, is a crisis — more exactly, a challenge — that will affect the very nature of Europe itself.

.............

For years, Europe has functioned as a shining example of social democracy. It provided its people with not only a high standard of living but one that because so many services, such as medicare, were public, was broadly egalitarian and equitable. Indeed, Europe was a key role model for Canada.

So what's gone so wrong there, unlike here?

In a sense, the problem was that the model was too successful. It made everyone happy. Happier, though, than they could really afford. The only way to cover the gap and keep everyone happy was to go into debt.

At one and the same time this debt kept growing (because of interest on past debt) and the demand for services kept on increasing as what once were seen as privileges came to be taken for granted as entitlements.

............

The remedy being applied, first in Greece, most recently in Britain, is less social democracy. Pay freezes and a cut in new hiring in the civil service. Cuts in regional grants. Pledges to raise the minimum retirement age.

Far deeper cuts are unavoidable. These cuts, though, will cause unemployment and slow economic growth, thereby increasing government spending and decreasing revenues.

And real reform of pension programs has yet to begin.

Europe will come through it. (We survived the spending cuts by which then finance minister Paul Martin Jr. got our finances into order in the 1990s.)

The Europe of the future, though, will be less social and less democratic. It will be, that is, less European. As for alternate role models, who really wants to make their society more like China?

Link: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/815586--gwyn-europe-s-easy-days-are-over

[Jack Weber]

But we more relatively more successful then most countries then, even that sounds pretty good.

I agree that it sounds good,but I'm not sure our standard of living is better than it was 30 to 40 years ago,relatively speaking.

I hear about all these wonderful gains in productivity.Productivity is neo-liberal code for less people doing more work for less money...So fewer people are doing more work for less money...I understand how this increases the bottom line for shareholders.I don't understand how this is good for our overall standard of living?

[Smallc]

Really???

Wages have remained essentially stagnant for almost 30 years when inflation is taken into account.

That may be, but many other places have went backwards.