Mulcair, Lougheed, Stelmach

[TimG]

Oh yah that is it? You have declared boom times are gone forever.

You can't prove me wrong and we cannot afford to run a government that assumes that boom times will return in a few years. Whether you like it or not austerity is the way of the future and you can either accept a less painful version of it now or be forced to accept a much more painful version in the future. I personally prefer less pain now than more pain in the future.

Japan BTW this years GDP growth will be 6%. Think of what we doing only a few years ago with 3-4% growth.

Japan 6% GDP growth? What are you smoking? It ain't going to happen. http://www.murc.jp/english/publ/forecast/2012/201202.pdf

Our forecast is that real growth in fiscal 2012 will be +2.2% over the

previous year (an upward revision from +1.8% in our previous forecast),

and growth will, therefore, become positive again.

[TimG]

(And when it comes to those making 250 000 or more...83% of Canadians are in favour of it.)

Of course. Greedy SOBs ALWAYS agree to raise taxes on other people. I don't much much stock in such selfish responses.

The interesting question is this:

The survey of 2,000 Canadians, commissioned by the left-leaning Broadbent Institute, found that 23 per cent are "very willing" and 41 per cent are "somewhat willing" to pay slightly more tax in order to protect social programs such as health care, post-secondary education and pensions.

Note the wording.

The question implies that 'slightly more' tax would be enough to 'protect social programs'. There is no evidence that a slight increase would be sufficient. Therefore the poll results are meaningless.

What I find most interesting is the use of the word 'slightly'. I am sure it was added to the survey because the Broadbent Institute could not get the answer they wanted without that qualifier. For that reason I feel the poll supports my claim that Canadians have no interest in tax increases.

Edited July 15, 2012 by TimG

[punked]

You can't prove me wrong and we cannot afford to run a government that assumes that boom times will return in a few years. Whether you like it or not austerity is the way of the future and you can either accept a less painful version of it now or be forced to accept a much more painful version in the future. I personally prefer less pain now than more pain in the future.

Japan 6% GDP growth? What are you smoking? It ain't going to happen. http://www.murc.jp/english/publ/forecast/2012/201202.pdf

I can't prove you wrong? The 1930s proved you wrong. Again your ideas and what you are saying right now are the same actions steps governments took that lead to the great depression. We already know your ideas are wrong, we tried them, they lead to the worst slump in the last 100-150 years. There is no point going down that road again when we know it is the wrong one.

We should be doing what Japan wasn't doing in the 90s and that stimulus. We should have learned from our mistakes by now.

Edited July 15, 2012 by punked

[TimG]

Again your ideas and what you are saying right now are the same actions steps governments took that lead to the great depression.

If a government has no debt then running up debt to juice the economy is extremely effective. The trouble comes when the government has lots of debt and piling on more debt undermines the confidence of the private sector because they fear the consequences of repaying that debt. That is what is happening now. The future liabilities created by more government debt hurt the economy more than the benefit of spending in the short term.

You need to learn what actually happened in Japan (your 6% growth whopper shows that whatever information sources you have they are wrong). Japan is the poster child for Keynesian stimulus. They have run up a debt of 200% of GDP which will eventually crush the economy but have little to show for it. They have only kept the house of cards alive this long because they were borrowing from themselves but that has changed thanks to the massive fossil fuel purchases that started when their nukes were shut down. They are trying to raise taxes to deal with the problem but are being blocked by naive yahoos who insist that "we can't cut during bad times".

Edited July 15, 2012 by TimG

[punked]

If a government has no debt then running up debt to juice the economy is extremely effective. The trouble comes when the government has lots of debt and piling on more debt undermines the confidence of the private sector because they fear the consequences of repaying that debt. That is what is happening now. The future liabilities created by more government debt hurt the economy more than the benefit of spending in the short term.

Show me evidence. Please show me evidence that is what is happening right now. Here is a hint there is no confidence fairy, there is no one at Rodgers saying "We better not hirer anyone because our Debt to GDP ratio is 88%". Only a fool believes that. PLEASE SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT with one just one example.

Right now the private sector is hording cash because they have no place to spend and there is no foreseeable growth opportunities. That (as we learned in the 1930s when we last had this liquidity trap situation) is the time for public spending and investment.

[bleeding heart]

Of course. Greedy SOBs ALWAYS agree to raise taxes on other people. I don't much much stock in such selfish responses.

The interesting question is this:

Note the wording.

The question implies that 'slightly more' tax would be enough to 'protect social programs'. There is no evidence that a slight increase would be sufficient. Therefore the poll results are meaningless.

What I find most interesting is the use of the word 'slightly'. I am sure it was added to the survey because the Broadbent Institute could not get the answer they wanted without that qualifier. For that reason I feel the poll supports my claim that Canadians have no interest in tax increases.

(Leaving aside the interesting fact that you think 83% of Canadians are "greedy SOBs"--because they think there should be a tax hike on the class of which you are a sycophant; and the related fact that you are part of the tiny, 17% minority of Canadians who are not "greedy SOBs".....)

Yes, it says the opposite of your claim--which remains completely unsupported, by the way--so therefore it supports your claim!

You'll no doubt have noted that I myself alluded to the word "slightly," and intimated that the poll doesn't provide us with very solid information.

Hhowever, what it does do is destroy your assertion that Canadians simply don't want to pay more.

They are willing...including a majority of conservatives.

How much? A fair question, as yet unanswered...but it remains true that your claim is demolished.

Unless, Tim, you can support your claim...say, with a competing (contemporary) poll, done by a right-leaning think tank.

As it stands, there is some polling information supporting my view--versus your bald opinion, supported by literally nothing whatsoever.

If the poll and its questions are weak (and I concede they're not great)...what does that say about your unsupported view?

Edited July 15, 2012 by bleeding heart

[punked]

You need to learn what actually happened in Japan (your 6% growth whopper shows that whatever information sources you have they are wrong). Japan is the poster child for Keynesian stimulus. They have run up a debt of 200% which will eventually crush the economy but have little to show for it. They have only kept the house of cards alive this long because they were borrowing from themselves but that has changed thanks to the massive fossil fuel purchases that started when their nukes were shut down.

OMG you are so misinformed it isn't funny. Know who Japan owes 200% to? It is themselves they owe themselves that money and maybe the wheel stops turning for them or maybe it doesn't but they have carried that 200% number for a long long time. Know what their interest rate is on a 10 year borrowing? It is negative. Investors are paying Japan to take their money and hold for 10 years because they think it is such a safe bet. I guess the invisible hand of the market is only something you believe in when you aren't believing in it eh? Give me a break.

Again your ideas lead to the great depression anyone who picks up a history book can figure that out. Lets stop running for the cliff because you are scared of something that wont happen.

[TimG]

OMG you are so misinformed it isn't funny. Know who Japan owes 200% to?

Please learn some English. Here is what I said:

They have only kept the house of cards alive this long because they were borrowing from themselves

I addressed that argument but now I have to repeat it:

Japan was borrowing from themselves but that has changed in the last year because fossil fuel imports mean Japan now has a current account deficit with the rest of the world. 10% of the public debt is held by foreigners and it is rising. Interest rates are low everywhere now but a 1% increase on Japanese debt costs would consume every cent of Japanese government tax revenue. The country is sitting on a bomb an when it expodes it will be leave the Japanese much much poorer.

Again your ideas lead to the great depression anyone who picks up a history book can figure that out. Lets stop running for the cliff because you are scared of something that wont happen.

You are a one trick pony: spend spend spend. The fact is massive government debts are not sustainable. The only person who is advocating that we drive off a cliff is you. Edited July 15, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

People like you are the recent Europe is a basket case.

We are not Europe. And the figure I was thinking of is the interest costs on our debt. The debt to GDP ratio is nowhere near mid 80s percentage. The federal debt is sitting right around 30%. It was never as high as 84%. Only provincial debts hit that level in the mid-90s. There's only one way to describe calling for austerity "before the crisis hits" when there's no indication that we're even remotely close to a debt crisis: "complete nonsense."

Fiscal 'crisis' in context: two indicators" by Jim Stanford

[cybercoma]

and people like you who are under the impression because you vote conservative automatically make financial geniuses making broad generalizations about European economics....here some current european unemployment figures Norway 3%, Austria (4.1 %),Denmark 4.5%, the Netherlands (5.1 %), Luxembourg (5.4 %) and and Germany (5.6 %)....canada 7.2%...lumping in still developing eastern european countries and basket cases like greece is a smoke screen all the while you ignore that ultra conservative basket case south of our border...

neoconservatives can't reconcile their supply side tax breaks and calls for austerity by pointing to the European boogie-man with the fact that some of the most successful European states have some of the largest social sector economies in the world.

[cybercoma]

The world is entering a low growth phase

The world isn't entering a low growth phase. The capitalist economies are funnelling money to the top of the pyramid. Those at the very top are still growing their wealth, while everyone else is getting shafted. Meanwhile, conservative politicians continue to treat their base like mushrooms: they're kept in the dark and fed shit. While their supporters continue to watch their standard of living and wealth dwindle away, conservative politicians tell them to pay no attention to the men behind the curtain and blame their problems on everything else under the sun: unions, democrats, globalism, etc. It's not liberals and swing voters that they're trying to woo over with their lies. It's their own base they're trying to keep in the dark so they keep voting in these bastards.

[wyly]

(And when it comes to those making 250 000 or more...83% of Canadians are in favour of it.)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/10/pol-broadbent-poll.html

It would appear, at least by implication, that Canadians don't want to pay way more; and the hypothetical raise, "slightly," doesn't tell us a lot, I concede.

But it does tell us that yoru declarative sentence is in fact flatly untrue.

slightly is a very relative term as well... while no one likes paying taxes you can't run a country without them, if taxes are to be raised we expect it be necessary and spent responsibly...limos rides, personal helicopters,gazebos, propaganda photo ops and $18 OJs are not acceptable ways to spend our tax dollars Edited July 15, 2012 by wyly

[TimG]

The debt to GDP ratio is nowhere near mid 80s percentage.

It is according to the IMF and the CIA fact book. The title on the Sanford graph is 'net' debt which implies they have subtracted something from 'gross' debt figures. Given Sanford is the only source I have seen for those lower figures I don't take them seriously until I have seen a decent explanation for why there is a difference.

Bottom line: debt to GDP is 80-84% which is the same as France and France has started running into problems on the debt market. There is no 'magic number' for debt-to-GDP ratio since a crisis can occur at any level. That is why it is dangerous to be increasing the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Edited July 15, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

The world isn't entering a low growth phase.

And your basis for that statement is what? I am basing my claim on the massive overhang from a debt fueled bubble in the US, Europe, China and Japan. I see no room for robust growth until these debt levels are reduced.

[Michael Hardner]

And your basis for that statement is what? I am basing my claim on the massive overhang from a debt fueled bubble in the US, Europe, China and Japan. I see no room for robust growth until these debt levels are reduced.

Why does reducing debt levels mean a dip in growth ?

[TimG]

Why does reducing debt levels mean a dip in growth?

Because cash in invested in paying off debt rather than in consumption.

[TimG]

How much? A fair question, as yet unanswered...but it remains true that your claim is demolished.

Sophistry. A loaded question on a push poll gets a majority to 'somewhat agree' to a vague question of slightly more. Yet when faced with what was a 'slight' tax increase in BC the citizens voted 65% against. I say real results of real referendums trump push polls.

The fact is people do not trust that government will spend their money well and they have plenty of evidence to support that view. As long as people distrust the ability of governments to manage spending they will resist tax increases.

Of course, you can always get people to agree to increase their neighbor's taxes as long as they don't have to pay more.

Edited July 15, 2012 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

Sophistry. A loaded question on a push poll gets a majority to 'somewhat agree' to a vague question of slightly more. Yet when faced with what was a 'slight' tax increase in BC the citizens voted 65% against. I say real results of real referendums trump push polls.

No, you cherry-pick a regional voting matter and then assert it backs up your claim that Canadians simply aren't amenable to higher taxes...for any purpose whatsoever.

Which is nothing more than a matter of faith for you as it is...since you asserted this "truth" before trying to discover if you could back it up.

It's rich that this is your argument to counter "sophistry," however!

The fact is people do not trust that government will spend their money well and they have plenty of evidence to support that view. As long as people distrust the ability of governments to manage spending they will resist tax increases.

Hence "slightly," no doubt.

But if Canadians really do think that the money will go to health care, social services, and so on (tmatters that you would personally oppose, perhaps), then they might be far more amenable.

which of course was the point of the poll cited, which was based on the hypothetical of just such matters.

Of course, you can always get people to agree to increase their neighbor's taxes as long as they don't have to pay more.

Uh huh. And exactly what sacrifices do you, personally, suppose you're going to make under your cherished "austerity" policies?

Edited July 15, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

Because cash in invested in paying off debt rather than in consumption.

And that cash then disappears?

[Canuckistani]

Yet when faced with what was a 'slight' tax increase in BC the citizens voted 65% against. I say real results of real referendums trump push polls.

People voted against it because the govt denied it had plans to harmonize the tax before the election, then brought it in immediately after, with evidence they had been working towards harmonization even before the election. We were sick of a govt that had overstayed its welcome and became too arrogant. The biggest push against this tax came from the right. I voted no, not because I thought the old system was better or cost me less in taxes, but because of the way the tax was brought in. I think people are also tired of the BC liberals lowering corporate and high income taxes, and bringing in regressive taxes or "user fees" instead - I certainly am.

It's very likely that the NDP will form the govt in BC next year. People know that very likely means an increase in taxes, bit will vote for them because they will see those taxes as more fair because they take the most from the people with the most to give. As long as the NDP can restrain itself this time around they have a good chance to get and stay in power for a while.

[punked]

It is according to the IMF and the CIA fact book. The title on the Sanford graph is 'net' debt which implies they have subtracted something from 'gross' debt figures. Given Sanford is the only source I have seen for those lower figures I don't take them seriously until I have seen a decent explanation for why there is a difference.

Bottom line: debt to GDP is 80-84% which is the same as France and France has started running into problems on the debt market. There is no 'magic number' for debt-to-GDP ratio since a crisis can occur at any level. That is why it is dangerous to be increasing the debt-to-GDP ratio.

yah France has ran into so much trouble that the interest on a 2 year bond is 0%. I mean this right now as of today if you buy a 2 year bond from France you are going to get nothing in return. All I have seen from you in this thread is a bunch of mis information and BS.

On a ten year bond BTW last year France was paying 3.5% today it is 2.2%. Tell me more all about their trouble on the bond market as if you know anything. This is the problem public opinion is being formed by people who state facts with out checking any of them.

Edited July 15, 2012 by punked

[TimG]

yah France has ran into so much trouble that the interest on a 2 year bond is 0%.

France is on borrowed time:

http://business-standard.com/india/news/nestle-borrows-more-cheaply-than-france-amid-haven-appetite/480556/

Nestle SA, the world’s largest food manufacturer, is so in demand by debt investors that it’s able to borrow more cheaply than France.

I am sorry but the idea that a large multi-national could get LOWER rates than France is a sign that the the bond markets lack confidence in France. It also blows up the idea that if the state can borrow more cheaply than the private sector.

Also this blip in Nov illustrates how fragile France's position really is:

http://www.businessinsider.com/something-just-happened-france-yields-just-exploded-2011-11#ixzz1cYE4SENN

Countries with 'nothing to worry about' don't see the yields on their bonds spike like that.

Edited July 15, 2012 by TimG

[punked]

France is on borrowed time:

http://business-standard.com/india/news/nestle-borrows-more-cheaply-than-france-amid-haven-appetite/480556/

I am sorry but the idea that a large multi-national could get LOWER rates than France is a sign that the the bond markets lack confidence in France. It also blows up the idea that if the state can borrow more cheaply than the private sector.

Also this blip in Nov illustrates how fragile France's position really is:

http://www.businessinsider.com/something-just-happened-france-yields-just-exploded-2011-11#ixzz1cYE4SENN

Countries with 'nothing to worry about' don't see the yields on their bonds spike like that.

What a disjointed, and ridiculous argument. France is borrowing for almost the same rate as Germany. You going to tell me Germany is living on borrowed time. Seriously you live in your own universe.

[cybercoma]

What a disjointed, and ridiculous argument. France is borrowing for almost the same rate as Germany. You going to tell me Germany is living on borrowed time. Seriously you live in your own universe.

Well yeah. He lives in a world of false equivalences, where everyone is biased and facts can be cherry-picked or made up at will with equal validity.

[cybercoma]

And what's Sweden and Denmark borrowing at with their doomed socialist experiments?