Mulcair, Lougheed, Stelmach

[TimG]

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.

Short term interest rate declines were brought on by the ECB rate cut simply mask the underlying problems. If you don't understand the fiscal challenges facing France today then you don't have a useful opinion on the topic.

[TimG]

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

I simply play the odds. The "socialist experiment" ends badly for the most countries that follow it. Perhaps Denmark and Sweden are the exception. Perhaps their day of reckoning has not arrived yet. But we have the failure of the Quebec "socialist experiment" to give us an idea of how such policies will play out here.

[punked]

Short term interest rate declines were brought on by the ECB rate cut simply mask the underlying problems. If you don't understand the fiscal challenges facing France today then you don't have a useful opinion on the topic.

France does face real fiscal challenges however long term debt isn't in its top 5.

[madmax]

Short term interest rate declines were brought on by the ECB rate cut simply mask the underlying problems. If you don't understand the fiscal challenges facing France today then you don't have a useful opinion on the topic.

The RightWing President Sarkozky who governed France into this economic chaos, is now replaced by a Socialist President.

However I consider this a red herring to the thread at hand.

Which is that Mulcair is taking his talking points from Lougheed and Stelmach.

Edited July 16, 2012 by madmax

[punked]

The RightWing President Sarkozky who governed France into this economic chaos, is now replaced by a Socialist President.

Shut up! Invisible hand of the market only counts if it does what I say it should do!!!!!

[Canuckistani]

I simply play the odds. The "socialist experiment" ends badly for the most countries that follow it. Perhaps Denmark and Sweden are the exception. Perhaps their day of reckoning has not arrived yet. But we have the failure of the Quebec "socialist experiment" to give us an idea of how such policies will play out here.

Which developed countries do you consider non-socialist and which developed countries aren't running on borrowed time? Sweden and Denmark are mixed economies, same as everybody else. They may be a bit further toward the socialist end of the spectrum than the US - which ain't exactly rocking either.

[punked]

Better be scared TimG says if we take on more debt to actually drag our country out of stagnant growth people will stop investing. I guess no one know told the investors of the world of Tims view.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABRE86F0HU20120716

[cybercoma]

Better be scared TimG says if we take on more debt to actually drag our country out of stagnant growth people will stop investing. I guess no one know told the investors of the world of Tims view.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABRE86F0HU20120716

I know if people started spending their money, as an investor, I would pull all of my money out of the markets.

[jbg]

Its seems that Mulcair has been taking the position of past PC leaders when talking of the Alberta Oil Industry.

********

Mulcair says it and he means it.

I think this is good for the country as I also believe Harper Says what he means, even if he chooses to say it outside of Canada first.

Perhaps Mulcair realizes that Canada won't elect a died in the wool socialist? Or maybe pimping for a merger?

[CPCFTW]

Better be scared TimG says if we take on more debt to actually drag our country out of stagnant growth people will stop investing. I guess no one know told the investors of the world of Tims view.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABRE86F0HU20120716

I'm sorry but wtf does this article have to do with your comment? You do realize countries are constantly rolling over debt with these bond sales right?

Did you even read the article? It specifically mentions Canada's strong fiscal fundamentals as a reason for the success of the bond auction.

Furthermore, every "safe haven" country had great recent bond auctions. It has been Canada's fiscal prudence that has led to it becoming a safe haven for investors.

[cybercoma]

Did you even read the article? It specifically mentions Canada's strong fiscal fundamentals as a reason for the success of the bond auction.

Strong fiscal fundamentals that came from Liberal governments. You don't want to admit that though because you're too busy drinking the Koolaid straight out of Harper's spigot. Edited July 17, 2012 by cybercoma

[punked]

I'm sorry but wtf does this article have to do with your comment? You do realize countries are constantly rolling over debt with these bond sales right?

Did you even read the article? It specifically mentions Canada's strong fiscal fundamentals as a reason for the success of the bond auction.

Furthermore, every "safe haven" country had great recent bond auctions. It has been Canada's fiscal prudence that has led to it becoming a safe haven for investors.

When is the time to stimulate the Economy? If not when we have low growth, high unemployment, and low borrowing costs. Tim says we can't afford to make the Canadian economy better because investors in our economy will be scared off but right now we are fighting investors off. Stimulating our economy is not going to hurt us fiscally as we have seen with some of the fastest growing economies today (Austria, Sweden) but actually give us a leg up and head start. The time to spend is during the bust the time to cut is during the boom.

If you can't follow what I have been saying for the last year I am not sure how to explain it any simpler.

[CPCFTW]

When is the time to stimulate the Economy? If not when we have low growth, high unemployment, and low borrowing costs. Tim says we can't afford to make the Canadian economy better because investors in our economy will be scared off but right now we are fighting investors off. Stimulating our economy is not going to hurt us fiscally as we have seen with some of the fastest growing economies today (Austria, Sweden) but actually give us a leg up and head start. The time to spend is during the bust the time to cut is during the boom.

If you can't follow what I have been saying for the last year I am not sure how to explain it any simpler.

The link you provided doesn't support your argument. It just seemed like a strange link to use to "call out" Tim.

We already did provide stimulus, hence the record low interest rates.

[CPCFTW]

Strong fiscal fundamentals that came from Liberal governments. You don't want to admit that though because you're too busy drinking the Koolaid straight out of Harper's spigot.

"Hook"

I don't want to admit that? Thanks for speaking for me.

Yes we were in a good fiscal position due to the liberal govt and a relatively stable period of strong economic growth. We have maintained that good fiscal position through this recession thanks to the Harper government (which you refuse to admit because you're too busy drinking the anti-Harper Koolaid). What does this have to do with punked's theory that we should start running larger deficits to stimulate the economy?

[cybercoma]

"Hook"

Yeah it was.

[Shady]

Strong fiscal fundamentals that came from Liberal governments. You don't want to admit that though because you're too busy drinking the Koolaid straight out of Harper's spigot.

Yes, strong fundamentals brought upon by cutting spending and reforming EI. You don't want to admit though. Government spending cut across the board by 15-18%. The Liberals were Tea Party before area Party existed!

[punked]

The link you provided doesn't support your argument. It just seemed like a strange link to use to "call out" Tim.

We already did provide stimulus, hence the record low interest rates.

I think we are talking about different things. I don't call a 5-10% cut across the board stimulus but I guess Conservatives seem to think it is.

[wyly]

We have maintained that good fiscal position through this recession thanks to the Harper government (which you refuse to admit because you're too busy drinking the anti-Harper Koolaid).

thanks to Harper? he didn't even see the recession coming! ", no recession, no deficit" he claimed ...and let's not forget it was the Harper government that contributed to the over heated housing issues in 2006 with the expansion of zero-down 40-year mortgages!...all credit goes to Paul Martin, we're damn lucky we didn't end up in as deep shitte as the americans in spite of Harper's incompetence...

[Shady]

I think we are talking about different things. I don't call a 5-10% cut across the board stimulus but I guess Conservatives seem to think it is.

You must have missed when the opposition threatened an election if Harper didn't spend billions on stimulus. But if the global economy doesn't change, a stimulus will do very little. And we'll be right back in the same place, but with a larger debt. Probably with people like you demanding more stimulus again. Rinse and repeat

[punked]

You must have missed when the opposition threatened an election if Harper didn't spend billions on stimulus. But if the global economy doesn't change, a stimulus will do very little. And we'll be right back in the same place, but with a larger debt. Probably with people like you demanding more stimulus again. Rinse and repeat

Yah it did so little. The unemployment only stopped climbing when it went into effect and dropped 1.5% over the time period afterward. Give me a break Shady just because you want to believe something doesn't make it true.

[Shady]

Yah it did so little. The unemployment only stopped climbing when it went into effect and dropped 1.5% over the time period afterward. Give me a break Shady just because you want to believe something doesn't make it true.

So how long do you want to keep up stimulus spending? 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? Just how much debt do you want to leave to future generations? Plus, deficit spending is stimulus in itself. I guess that's not good enough. More debt!

[punked]

So how long do you want to keep up stimulus spending? 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? Just how much debt do you want to leave to future generations? Plus, deficit spending is stimulus in itself. I guess that's not good enough. More debt!

It took close to 8 years of stimulus to end the Great depression Shady. Before that they had 22% unemployment which did not go away because the government was afraid to spend. I had hoped the first round was enough and it was but now Europe is back in recession (well almost all of Europe accept of the Stimulus countries like Sweden and Austria who are growing at 5-6% a year). I prefer not to lose 4-8 years of productivity like you do so when this world hurt is all over Canada is 4-8 year ahead of the game. The time to cut is during the boom when the Private sector will absorb the slack not in the Bust.

WE ALREADY LEARNED THESE LESSONS FROM THE GREAT DEPRESSION. Why do people like Shady want to make all those mistakes again.

[Shady]

It took close to 8 years of stimulus to end the Great depression Shady. Before that they had 22% unemployment which did not go away because the government was afraid to spend. I had hoped the first round was enough and it was but now Europe is back in recession (well almost all of Europe accept of the Stimulus countries like Sweden and Austria who are growing at 5-6% a year). I prefer not to lose 4-8 years of productivity like you do so when this world hurt is all over Canada is 4-8 year ahead of the game. The time to cut is during the boom when the Private sector will absorb the slack not in the Bust.

WE ALREADY LEARNED THESE LESSONS FROM THE GREAT DEPRESSION. Why do people like Shady want to make all those mistakes again.

If by stimulus you mean world war 2.

[punked]

If by stimulus you mean world war 2.

Are you saying there wasn't huge amounts of debt taken up by the public sector to employ people and keep them skilled until the Private sector could take up the slake in the 1930s Shady? I get that you don't like the fact that it worked, I get that you don't understand the problem. Pretending History didn't happen though is just plain dumb Shady.

BTW stimulus was working with out the war Build up in the early 30s but hey who cares about history right?

Edited July 17, 2012 by punked

[wyly]

Are you saying there wasn't huge amounts of debt taken up by the public sector to employ people and keep them skilled until the Private sector could take up the slake in the 1930s Shady? I get that you don't like the fact that it worked, I get that you don't understand the problem. Pretending History didn't happen though is just plain dumb Shady.

BTW stimulus was working with out the war Build up in the early 30s but hey who cares about history right?

make sense to me, why encourage spending in an overheated economy it just inflates things further...

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...

Edited July 17, 2012 by wyly