Mulcair, Lougheed, Stelmach

[blueblood]

Fiscal responsibility and some of the largest social spending in the world.

This is exactly what Jonathan Kay was talking about and it's practically the NDP's platform.

Yet in my article it says that social spending is being reduced, and Sweden did NO stimulus. If a spending spree is so popular why did a centre right govt get elected there and reduced social spending and provided zero stimulus?

[cybercoma]

Yet in my article it says that social spending is being reduced, and Sweden did NO stimulus. If a spending spree is so popular why did a centre right govt get elected there and reduced social spending and provided zero stimulus?

Reduced social spending in Sweden is still a hell of a lot more social spending than we're doing, which should pretty much put to rest the doom and gloom claims about austerity here.

[blueblood]

Reduced social spending in Sweden is still a hell of a lot more social spending than we're doing, which should pretty much put to rest the doom and gloom claims about austerity here.

The gist of the article is that Sweden is staying wiin it's budget and squeezing it's welfare state. They elected a centre right govt. They are reducing taxes and have made private sector job creation priority one.

We did not need the stimulus here in Canada, it was a complete waste and did nothing. Heck in Saskatchewan is the only balanced budget in the country and has slashed it's debt by 40 percent. Not only that it had near 5 percent GDP growth.

It's all about making things people want at the right price. Heck there's even work for you out there.

[punked]

Yet in my article it says that social spending is being reduced, and Sweden did NO stimulus. If a spending spree is so popular why did a centre right govt get elected there and reduced social spending and provided zero stimulus?

How about we talk more about how Sweden is an example but you don't ignore real facts. I think these facts are easiest to see. Also there was stimulus spending in Sweden this an example of someone who knows nothing trying to control their message. Know what Sweden's Stimulus was almost all of? It was all funding for training people in the work that is out there today. Their government trained almost 150,000 people in a country of 9 million in new work. I will await your call for our government to follow their example.

http://www.economywatch.com/economic-stimulus-package/sweden.html

Swedish Gov’t Spending as % of GDP

2007: 51.0%

2008: 51.7%

2009: 55.2%

2010: 53.0%

US Federal Gov’t Spending as % of GDP

2007: 19.7%

2008: 20.8%

2009: 25.2%

2010: 24.1%

Edited July 18, 2012 by punked

[CPCFTW]

US is actually closer to 45% if you include state and municipal spending iirc.

[madmax]

Yet in my article it says that social spending is being reduced, and Sweden did NO stimulus. If a spending spree is so popular why did a centre right govt get elected there and reduced social spending and provided zero stimulus?

IIRC the Swedish Democrats received more votes and more seats then the Centre Right "Moderate Party".

However, I believe it is a Coalition Government of Moderate and 4 other smaller parties.

Now what does this have to do with Lougheed, Mulcair and Stelman?

Or is it proof that all political parties move to the Centre?

[kraychik]

You fail to realize that government debt is not the same as personal debt.

You fail to realise that federal debt in Canada as a share of GDP isn't 4%, but actually around 35%. More importantly, as has already been explained to you by blueblood, government debt is still money that needs to be repaid by individual flesh and blood human beings, much like personal debt. What you're doing is revealing the mentality of the left towards government spending, you think money just grows on trees. This is why people like you need to be kept as far away from political power as possible. You view government spending like an infinite credit card.

Edited July 18, 2012 by kraychik

[punked]

You fail to realise that federal debt in Canada as a share of GDP isn't 4%, but actually around 35%. More importantly, as has already been explained to you by blueblood, government debt is still money that needs to be repaid by individual flesh and blood human beings, much like personal debt. What you're doing is revealing the mentality of the left towards government spending, you think money just grows on trees. This is why people like you need to be kept as far away from political power as possible. You view government spending like an infinite credit card.

You do know that business often use debt to expand and grow. Most WW2 debt was paid off not through huge cuts but through fiscal expansions which is how debt is often retired because cuts often lead to huge fall offs in revenue right? Of course you don't because in your world everything is black and white and there is only one way to govern a country.

[madmax]

It's still debt and it has to be repaid. Ask Greece and Argentina what happens when you don't take your debt seriously.

Preston manning, Paul Martin, and Brian Mulroney knew the answer to this problem.

Preston Manning was never in a position to do something about it at any level.

Perhaps one need look no further then T. Douglas who eliminated the deficits and balanced the budget over 16 consecutive times. Something NO Liberal or Conservative Premier had ever achieved previous.

[kraychik]

You do know that business often use debt to expand and grow. Most WW2 debt was paid off not through huge cuts but through fiscal expansions which is how debt is often retired because cuts often lead to huge fall offs in revenue right? Of course you don't because in your world everything is black and white and there is only one way to govern a country.

As I stated earlier, the government isn't in the business of making investments for profit. They don't have the expertise, and most importantly, they don't have the incentives or disincentives to do so. This is elementary.

[punked]

As I stated earlier, the government isn't in the business of making investments for profit. They don't have the expertise, and most importantly, they don't have the incentives or disincentives to do so. This is elementary.

I am not saying they are there make profits. Although they are there to provide services (example roads) which make our country stronger, and more competitive. If they do that then tax revenues will go up with out cuts or tax increases and you can like a business grow yourself out of deficit. You know like almost every government did after WW2, how we have done in NA until the 1980s. Seriously read a book.

Edited July 18, 2012 by punked

[CPCFTW]

You do know that business often use debt to expand and grow. Most WW2 debt was paid off not through huge cuts but through fiscal expansions which is how debt is often retired because cuts often lead to huge fall offs in revenue right? Of course you don't because in your world everything is black and white and there is only one way to govern a country.

Can you clarify what you mean by "fiscal expansions"? The only way to pay off debt that I am aware of is to take in more money than you spend. Saying that we paid off our debts through "fiscal expansions" is quite vague.

Businesses do often use debt to expand and grow, but businesses also often go bankrupt. If many businesses go bankrupt by taking on too much debt, why would we trust our government (whose fiscal policy is managed by politicians seeking re-election) to not bankrupt itself? Would you trust a business manager to not bankrupt your company if the manager was compensated by how popular he is with his employees?

There's a clear agency problem between the interests of democratically elected politicians, and the long-term interests of a country. The long-term interests of the country do not necessarily align with the short-term interests of the politician seeking election/re-election. Until that agency problem is resolved, I don't see how you can trust politicians with borrowing to "invest" in the economy.

Edited July 18, 2012 by CPCFTW

[kraychik]

Nobody's debating whether or not the government should construct and maintain roads. That's yet another strawman argument. You can keep pretending I'm an anarchist, but it won't make it true. You're trying to present a false choice, between your socialist utopia and an anarchy. You're not too good at this "political debate" thing, it seems.

[punked]

Can you clarify what you mean by "fiscal expansions"? The only way to pay off debt that I am aware of is to take in more money than you spend. Saying that we paid off our debts through "fiscal expansions" is quite vague.

Businesses do often use debt to expand and grow, but businesses also often go bankrupt. If many businesses go bankrupt by taking on too much debt, why would we trust our government (whose fiscal policy is managed by politicians seeking re-election) to not bankrupt itself. Would you trust a business manager to not bankrupt your company if the manager was compensated by how popular he is with his employees?

There's a clear agency problem between the interests of democratically elected politicians, and the long-term interests of a country. The long-term interests of the country do not necessarily align with the short-term interests of the politician seeking election/re-election. Until that agency problem is resolved, I don't see how you can trust politicians with borrowing to "invest" in the economy.

What I am saying is right now instead of shrinking our GDP through cuts and having high unemployment which is often a drain on he economy both short term and long term (as people lose their skills or fail to develop new ones) we could be investing in Canadian infrastructure. Infrastructure that if the right kind (not digging ditches to fill them in) will improve Canada and make it a better place to do business in the future. If more business moves to OR starts up in and we have higher employment and participation our revenues will go up. Right now our debt is not hard to carry in fact we have to fight off the investors. Why is now not the time to look to the future of the country and invest in projects that will have to be done in the next 5 to 10 years anyway?

As the global economy comes back and we move into boom times those projects will tapper off and we will have not only an employable population but also infrastructure that business can use. Then we can look at freezing government spending OR even cutting but not now. The time to cut is during the boom not the bust.

[punked]

As I stated earlier, the government isn't in the business of making investments for profit. They don't have the expertise, and most importantly, they don't have the incentives or disincentives to do so. This is elementary.

Buzz words. How about some real examples. How about you explain instead of making stupid blanket statements that are meaningless?

[punked]

Nobody's debating whether or not the government should construct and maintain roads. That's yet another strawman argument. You can keep pretending I'm an anarchist, but it won't make it true. You're trying to present a false choice, between your socialist utopia and an anarchy. You're not too good at this "political debate" thing, it seems.

No I am really not. I am trying to point out our governments in the past have made investments where the private sector refused to and those investments made this country a better and more productive place for everyone.

[kraychik]

No I am really not. I am trying to point out our governments in the past have made investments where the private sector refused to and those investments made this country a better and more productive place for everyone.

You mentioned one "investment". Roads. Nobody is opposing construction and maintenance of roads. So is your solution to current economic troubles to simply build more roads, perhaps even where they are unnecessary? The refrain of the left is always, "Roads! Teachers! Police! Firefighters!", as if anyone on the right wants to privatise those services. So is that your solution to addressing the problem of insufficient economic growth and employment? Just get more of the basics?

[punked]

You mentioned one "investment". Roads. Nobody is opposing construction and maintenance of roads. So is your solution to current economic troubles to simply build more roads, perhaps even where they are unnecessary? The refrain of the left is always, "Roads! Teachers! Police! Firefighters!", as if anyone on the right wants to privatise those services. So is that your solution to addressing the problem of insufficient economic growth and employment? Just get more of the basics?

No I was giving one example of infrastructure the government has provided that make Canada more competitive. The governments across this country have invested in the power grid you are against that right because roads are the only thing the government is allowed to build now? Seriously I used roads to show how wrong you are on your belief that governments can;t invest to make the country more productive.

[CPCFTW]

What I am saying is right now instead of shrinking our GDP through cuts and having high unemployment which is often a drain on he economy both short term and long term (as people lose their skills or fail to develop new ones) we could be investing in Canadian infrastructure. Infrastructure that if the right kind (not digging ditches to fill them in) will improve Canada and make it a better place to do business in the future. If more business moves to OR starts up in and we have higher employment and participation our revenues will go up. Right now our debt is not hard to carry in fact we have to fight off the investors. Why is now not the time to look to the future of the country and invest in projects that will have to be done in the next 5 to 10 years anyway?

As the global economy comes back and we move into boom times those projects will tapper off and we will have not only an employable population but also infrastructure that business can use. Then we can look at freezing government spending OR even cutting but not now. The time to cut is during the boom not the bust.

I understand your point, but I was just questioning your seemingly blind faith in democratically elected politicians not bankrupting our country.

Cuts are necessary now because we already overspent on "investments" for the past 5 decades. Canada does not exactly have a history of paying off debts or cutting spending while in an economic "boom". In fact, in the past 50 years, we only briefly ran surpluses after our credit rating was downgraded in 1995. We were fortunate that this occurred during an economic boom rather than a bust, or we may have been another Greece (but without an ECB to bail us out).

I don't see how you can reconcile this history with your argument.

[punked]

I understand your point, but I was just questioning your seemingly blind faith in democratically elected politicians not bankrupting our country.

Cuts are necessary now because we already overspent on "investments" for the past 5 decades. Canada does not exactly have a history of paying off debts or cutting spending while in an economic "boom". In fact, in the past 50 years, we only briefly ran surpluses after our credit rating was downgraded in 1995. We were fortunate that this occurred during an economic boom rather than a bust, or we may have been another Greece (but without an ECB to bail us out).

I don't see how you can reconcile this history with your argument.

So we don't disagree you just refuse to believe there is anyone out there smart enough to do what I am saying we should do. Well I am willing to try because alternative is higher unemployment, a less competitive economy and losing 3-5 years of economic development. There is a risk on the other side of course but that is only if we "stimulate" for 15-20 years instead of the 2-5 I suggest. There is time to correct if it doesn't work still so why not try.

First thing is first I say the government starts talking to the provinces and builds a pipeline from cost to cost, to export our goods instead of giving it all away to the Americans export.

[blueblood]

Preston Manning was never in a position to do something about it at any level.

Perhaps one need look no further then T. Douglas who eliminated the deficits and balanced the budget over 16 consecutive times. Something NO Liberal or Conservative Premier had ever achieved previous.

He dragged martins feet to the fire on cuts. It was a unique time to get things done. Mulroney's free trade negotiations and consumption tax, Martin slashing budgets, and manning saying cut more.

I'll look at klein and wall for eliminating deficits and balancing budgets while dropping taxes and at the same time allowing industry to prosper. SK when Douglas was around spun it's tires. Then theres rae days in Ontario. How did his running massive deficits do for Ontario?

[blueblood]

So we don't disagree you just refuse to believe there is anyone out there smart enough to do what I am saying we should do. Well I am willing to try because alternative is higher unemployment, a less competitive economy and losing 3-5 years of economic development. There is a risk on the other side of course but that is only if we "stimulate" for 15-20 years instead of the 2-5 I suggest. There is time to correct if it doesn't work still so why not try.

First thing is first I say the government starts talking to the provinces and builds a pipeline from cost to cost, to export our goods instead of giving it all away to the Americans export.

How is it giving it away? The Americans invest in the oil sands to get the oil out and have the capacity to refine it. Why does there need to be a pipeline going across muskeg when a perfectly god one already exists that runs thru the USA to get to Ontario and Quebec? The energy company execs who are worth billions of dollars know how to get their oil exported far better than the either of us, that's why they're billionaires. Why would any company blow billions of dollars making new infrastructure in eastern Canada when they already have perfectly good infrastructure in Texas? The only place that needs a pipeline is out to bc and we have two private companies on that, no govt project necessary.

[blueblood]

How about we talk more about how Sweden is an example but you don't ignore real facts. I think these facts are easiest to see. Also there was stimulus spending in Sweden this an example of someone who knows nothing trying to control their message. Know what Sweden's Stimulus was almost all of? It was all funding for training people in the work that is out there today. Their government trained almost 150,000 people in a country of 9 million in new work. I will await your call for our government to follow their example.

http://www.economywatch.com/economic-stimulus-package/sweden.html

Swedish Gov’t Spending as % of GDP

2007: 51.0%

2008: 51.7%

2009: 55.2%

2010: 53.0%

US Federal Gov’t Spending as % of GDP

2007: 19.7%

2008: 20.8%

2009: 25.2%

2010: 24.1%

Your saying we should spend outside of our means and refer to Sweden. I point out that Sweden did zero stimulus and stayed within it's means and you moved the goal posts by stating that Sweden did stimulus anyway when my article clearly states they did not and stayed in surplus.

Sask has a balanced budget, slashed it's debt by 40 percent and has near 5 percent growth.

Also if you notice on this site here My link that during the prosperity era of pre and post civil war in the USA, govt spending was at a minimum, yet that's when it overtook the UK as the big dog on the block.

My point is that if you make things people want, govt spending isn't necessary. All govt spending does is run up the debt, stifle long term growth, and devalues the currency.

[jbg]

ridiculously low mortgage rates had people flipping houses left right and center, every flipper thought they were financial geniuses...it was all an illusion, they weren't making money because they knew how to renovate and flip but because of ridiculous market evaluations and cheap/easy mortgages...the result was when it all came to a halt a lot of people where caught with vastly over valued homes and huge debts...

Maybe I'm not such a genius. I last refinanced during August 2003. Now I have about 6 years to go on the mortgage and a balance about 1/5 the value of my house.

I must be downright stupid compared to those geniuses.

[jbg]

Spending then increased after the war and the economies roared ...

At least in our country, we had some pretty stiff inflation from 1945-7 and then some "creeping inflation" during the late 1950's that coincided with a soft economy. Inflation really roared from 1969-82. So something else besides the economy "roared". I think a lot of the growth was generated by infrastructure efficiencies in both our countries.

St. Laurent's pipeline (never built) didn't help.