2010s to be Canada's Decade

[Argus]

Much of the money that Canada has borrowed is at higher interest rates than we can get today

Oh? How much? What are the interest rates?

That's because Canada has a better credit rating than in the past, and because interest rates are lower than ever. Like I said, you just don't get it.

Really? You're a font of knowledge. Please tell me about how much our credit rating has changed.

[Smallc]

Oh? How much? What are the interest rates?

I don't know the exact numbers here. I an only go by information I've heard and read, and it tells me you're wrong.

Really? You're a font of knowledge. Please tell me about how much our credit rating has changed.

I can't find information on how long it has been at AAA. It may be that it never left there (though I don't see how, as there were international organizations telling us to get our ducks in a row in the late 80s to early 90s. There were even articles written calling us a banana republic). Nevertheless, our ability to borrow money at low interest rates has never been better.

[Argus]

I don't know the exact numbers here. I an only go by information I've heard and read, and it tells me you're wrong.

I'm sorry, is this that "evidence" you always post to back up your opinions?

I can't find information on how long it has been at AAA. It may be that it never left there (though I don't see how,

Uhm, okay.

[Smallc]

I'm sorry, is this that "evidence" you always post to back up your opinions?

No, I had to find that. We lost our high credit rating in the early 90s when Moodys (I believe) downgraded us). Others may not have done so, but it still increased our costs. We got the rating back in the mid 90s. The debt during the 80s high interest rate period as well as that period is more expensive than debt we can buy today:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/512801751.html?dids=512801751:512801751&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+28%2C+1993&author=&pub=The+Spectator&desc=Canada's+credit+lowered&pqatl=google

Edited May 30, 2010 by Smallc

[waldo]

If you want to call the money coming off your cheque taxes then fine. But it's supposedly for an insurance fund in case you become unemployed. Yet if you do become unemployed you have little chance of collecting it. Why? Because the money is being used as welfare subsidies in Atlantic Canada and for west coast fishermen. It was envisioned as insurance for regular workers. But it's become a subsidy for workers who only work a couple of months a year to qualify. And that's not the lazy workers idea. It was the Liberals who came up with it.

yes, of course, seasonal workers... along with fishers... are covered within the Employment Insurance Act. Do you have any real facts - real data - to support your assertion that your described, "regular workers", have been or are being denied legitimate EI claims? Didn't we just come through a period where Harper Conservatives stood up against calls for increased allowance/coverage for workers caught up within the recession... only to have them finally cave in to Liberal/NDP pressure and bring forward additional coverage related to the recession in the form of the, "Extension of EI Regular Benefits for Long-Tenured Workers"?

very surprised you would join in the NDP rhetoric about, "balancing the federal books on the backs of the unemployed". In any case, even though the Supreme Court ruled the Liberal government was authorized in transferring EI funds to general revenues, your boy Harper had/has the option of setting forward a plan to return that transferred amount back into the EI fund... you know, say... introduce a defined payroll tax targeted for the EI fund to 'recover the transferred amount'. Wonder why Harper Conservatives are not clamoring for your repeated calls for a payroll tax in the name of your, "regular workers", long denied their EI claims - hey Argus?

[dre]

Somewhat? That's like saying Hitler somewhat reduced the numbers of Jews in Germany. They slashed benefits to the bone, and made it all-but impossible for most workers to ever collect. That's where your "surplus" comes from.

Nor did he "pay for the debt". What he did was the equivalent of taking money out of your investments and using it to pay off a debt. The key here is the money was already there, and could have been used at any time to pay the debt, or could have simply been allowed to accumulate. It takes no great wizardry to cash in your investments and pay the bank. But doing so isn't always wise.

What safety cushion? The money was already there. If he hadn't spent it on the debt we could have used it last year instead of borrowing more money. I see no huge advantage either way, depending on what rates of interest we were getting.

If you want to call the money coming off your cheque taxes then fine. But it's supposedly for an insurance fund in case you become unemployed. Yet if you do become unemployed you have little chance of collecting it. Why? Because the money is being used as welfare subsidies in Atlantic Canada and for west coast fishermen. It was envisioned as insurance for regular workers. But it's become a subsidy for workers who only work a couple of months a year to qualify. And that's not the lazy workers idea. It was the Liberals who came up with it.

What safety cushion? The money was already there. If he hadn't spent it on the debt we could have used it last year instead of borrowing more money. I see no huge advantage either way, depending on what rates of interest we were getting.

It costs money to service debt, and its generally not smart to be sitting with a lot of cash on hand while youre servicing lots of debt. Youre better off paying down your debt and reducing you interest payments and borrowing the money back later if you need it.

[dre]

I'm sorry, is this that "evidence" you always post to back up your opinions?

Uhm, okay.

Your about the last person that should be demanding a source from ANYONE.

[bloodyminded]

Your about the last person that should be demanding a source from ANYONE.

All sociologists and psychologists agree.

[Smallc]

Some very good news today. All of the provinces are now projected to grow faster than originally though. Canada is on a tear:

Canada’s economy is expected to fully recoup its losses from the recession this quarter leaving the recovery phase behind and enter expansion territory after growing at the fastest pace in a decade last quarter, RBC Economics said.

Thanks to a rebounding job market, increases in business investment and controlled core inflation, real gross domestic product is projected to grow 3.6% in 2010, the bank’s Economic Outlook said Thursday.

If achieved, that would put Canada’s real GDP 0.4 percentage point above the previous peak in the current quarter, Paul Ferley, assistant chief economist for RBC, said.

“That would mean we will start moving out of recovery and into the expansion phase,” he told QMI Agency.

GDP soared more than 6% in the first quarter, the fastest clip in more than 10 years and enough to nearly make up all the lost ground from the recession.

Article by Stefania Moretti

Canoe....hmmmm...Speaking of Quebecor....lol.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Smallc

[William Ashley]

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.

If I had a bunch of cad in my vaults I'd want to shine it up too.

[Smallc]

Seems I was wrong about CIBC (thankfully) if this holds. On the bright side, the events of the last couple years have started to steer me towards thinking about a career in economics.

[Army Guy]

yes, of course, seasonal workers... along with fishers... are covered within the Employment Insurance Act. Do you have any real facts - real data - to support your assertion that your described, "regular workers", have been or are being denied legitimate EI claims?

I know that Military and RCMP, have EI deducted from thier pay checks every month, but because of pensions are not eligable to collect, after either being laid off or quit..Infact they must find another job work the laid out number of weeks then they apply qualify for EI...I'm not sure if this appies to all civil service employees or just the two i mentioned.