Deficit Continues to Shrink

[Shady]

You can't say one reporter wrote a piece and thus everyone felt that way. Post a poll or stop talking.

I said many people, not everyone. Aren't you the one always complaining about accuracy and context?

[bleeding heart]

Im using my phone, so I can't link.

I've been there, so I get that. No worries.

But why does it matter? You've already unapproved of the person disagreeing.

It's true I'm not a Blatchford fan.

[Shady]

I've been there, so I get that. No worries.

It's true I'm not a Blatchford fan.

Well, she's definitely not everyone's cup of tea.

[PIK]

Don't care what your opinion is on Jack's letter. Harper seemed to be AOK with it he gave him a state funeral. So how about you love it or leave it.

Harper has done his damnest to make peace with the left and the left just keeps up the old BS and tries to divide the country, which is what mulcair is going to do ,if he ever became PM. And now clark wants to speed up the destruction of the country.Harper has reach out, but the hatred from the left that has never be seen before in this country, will not lift a finger, just cry harder.

[cybercoma]

Harper has done his damnest to make peace with the left and the left just keeps up the old BS and tries to divide the country, which is what mulcair is going to do ,if he ever became PM. And now clark wants to speed up the destruction of the country.Harper has reach out, but the hatred from the left that has never be seen before in this country, will not lift a finger, just cry harder.

Except Mulcair rightfully recognizes the economic problems we're heading into based on Conservative economic policy. Dutch disease is a very real issue we're diving headlong into.

[WWWTT]

Many thought using his death to promote partisan politics was very unbecoming.

What Jack did during his life was his right to do as any other Canadian citizen has the same right.

How Jack used his death(and wanted his death to be used) was also his right just as any other Canadian.

Better than Fantino.

That guy used the death of those poor shooting victims in Scarborough to promote "conservative policy"!

Conservative policy did not even prevent their victimization.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

My beef is with people who blame the conservatives for the actions and decisions of the previous government

Then go start a thread about it.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Perhaps Jack shouldn't have injected partisan politics into his letter to Canadians. It was inappropriate.

Once again,Jack as any other Canadian citizen has the right to do so.

In fact it shows how much passion and drive for Canada he really had!

Try to top that one Harper!

WWWTT

[Moonbox]

I was defining what GDP is for the sake of the argument. As for you assertion that that only end products count that is fine however all you are doing in that end is counting the value added to the original purchase. It is a different way of counting but in the end if you add everything from bottom to the top and I add everything from top to bottom we are still going to end up with the same number.

That doesn't even make sense. Your problem wasn't a matter of which method you use or which way you add, it was a completely false statement about GDP in general. Saying things like: "It (GDP) is just a number that represents how much money changed hands in that country." is so fundamentally wrong in the context of GDP that if you had a proper understanding of the term you wouldn't have said it.

If we're to take your definition, ie, how much money changes hands, for a manufactured good let's say, you'd be looking at simplified example like this:

Money spent on raw materials, money spent on building parts, money spent to assemble the final product.

The price to assemble the final product includes the cost of buying the parts, which in itself includes the cost of buying raw materials. You don't add these all up. Doing so gives you a heavily inflated value of what was produced. The only number that counts is the cost of the final product.

Like I said, I'm not an expert. Please feel free to explain how I misunderstood gdp.

Okay. Go back to your original statement:

GDP is mainly generated by consumers and consumer confidence.

Please tell me how consumer confidence is factored into the measurement...

Edited August 1, 2012 by Moonbox

[WWWTT]

My original criticism on THAT part of the discussion was quoting a boneheaded post by WWWTT explaining what he thought GDP was: "GDP is mainly generated by consumers and consumer confidence."

HAAAA!!

Consumer spending accounts for well over 60% of the GDP in the USA!!!

Who's writing the boneheaded comments now?

Man your worst enemy are the facts buddy.

Just give it up.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Can we stop arguing about the definition of GDP? This is seriously pedantic.

[WWWTT]

I was defining what GDP is for the sake of the argument. As for you assertion that that only end products count that is fine however all you are doing in that end is counting the value added to the original purchase. It is a different way of counting but in the end if you add everything from bottom to the top and I add everything from top to bottom we are still going to end up with the same number.

I would imagine the most accurate figure would be derived from calculating the GDP using both methods(they both should be close) and then averaging the two numbers.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Can we stop arguing about the definition of GDP? This is seriously pedantic.

Actually the definition of GDP may actually determine if we are pulling ahead or not.

Not like there are huge numbers being thrown around by the finance department.

WWWTT

[punked]

That doesn't even make sense. Your problem wasn't a matter of which method you use or which way you add, it was a completely false statement about GDP in general. Saying things like: "It (GDP) is just a number that represents how much money changed hands in that country." is so fundamentally wrong in the context of GDP that if you had a proper understanding of the term you wouldn't have said it.

If we're to take your definition, ie, how much money changes hands, for a manufactured good let's say, you'd be looking at simplified example like this:

Money spent on raw materials, money spent on building parts, money spent to assemble the final product.

The price to assemble the final product includes the cost of buying the parts, which in itself includes the cost of buying raw materials. You don't add these all up. Doing so gives you a heavily inflated value of what was produced. The only number that counts is the cost of the final product.

I said it was spending not the money that changed hands. If you are going to misquote me then do it right at least.

I never said that there should double counting of course you would only account for the value added to products. I am not sure why you think I said that. I may not have written a 10 page essay on what GDP is but you are now using my broad definition to put words into my mouth. I am sure if you wanted to ask me to clarify before you used my ambiguity to declare I know nothing about anything I sure would have.

[cybercoma]

Actually the definition of GDP may actually determine if we are pulling ahead or not.

Not like there are huge numbers being thrown around by the finance department.

WWWTT

There is only one definition of GDP and a few different ways to calculate it. The different ways of calculating it yield nearly identical results, certainly not different enough to make a difference in the arguments that are being made.

[punked]

There is only one definition of GDP and a few different ways to calculate it. The different ways of calculating it yield nearly identical results, certainly not different enough to make a difference in the arguments that are being made.

Truth.

[CPCFTW]

Okay. Go back to your original statement:

Please tell me how consumer confidence is factored into the measurement...

Really? That was my original statement? You may want to double-check that since you are actually quoting WWWTT's response to me. You might want to slow down on the "snipes" if you can't keep track of who said what.

[CPCFTW]

There is only one definition of GDP and a few different ways to calculate it. The different ways of calculating it yield nearly identical results, certainly not different enough to make a difference in the arguments that are being made.

Well the original discussion stemmed from me stating that slowing GDP growth by itself isn't necessarily a bad thing (and certainly not from a 1 month sample). I stated that you would have to look at the underlying components of GDP growth.. in particular, the growth caused by private sector consumers vs public sector. Unfortunately Moonbox got lost and confused and derailed the discussion.

So to work our way back to my initial point, you cannot conclude that the economy is doing poorly solely on GDP growth slowing. It's like concluding that the economy is doing poorly because the unemployment % rose (which may have resulted from losing jobs [bad], or from people re-entering the work force [good/neutral]).

We should all be able to agree that a discussion regarding 1 month's gdp growth is pointless. I just wanted to dig a little deeper into the mainstream obsession with gdp growth when gdp growth in and of itself is not necessarily desirable. I tried to illustrate this with my example of a government borrowing to give every citizen a free massage (although this would have offsetting inflationary effects that reduced real gdp growth, but the inflation may be lagging or not completely offsetting of the nominal gdp growth).

Edited August 1, 2012 by CPCFTW

[cybercoma]

We should all be able to agree that a discussion regarding 1 month's gdp growth is pointless.

The discussion has never been about 1 month's GDP growth. It's about a recovery that's just not happening.

[madmax]

That's what I figured you'd do, move the goal posts. First, it's show you people that disagreed. Now you don't approve of them. Typical.

LMAO.... you are struggling. Its ok to have an opinion, but you aren't going to sell off your opinion as supported fact unless you provide the facts to support it.

Shady, you have been eating your own crow the last while...because this is how you like to do things and I can see you don't like it when its done back to you.

[madmax]

Really? That was my original statement? You may want to double-check that since you are actually quoting WWWTT's response to me. You might want to slow down on the "snipes" if you can't keep track of who said what.

Yes, I believe it was WWWTTs response and I believe their is a big difference between consumer spending and consumer confidence as the one can be backed by empircal data. The other is a rating If I understand how it works.

[WWWTT]

There is only one definition of GDP and a few different ways to calculate it. The different ways of calculating it yield nearly identical results, certainly not different enough to make a difference in the arguments that are being made.

Not according to some economists who criticized the Mike Harris pc government.Who during the turn of the century claimed to have balanced the budget!

You are assuming that a standard accepted method of calculating is being used.Can you provide a link that this is the case?

There have been examples of various Canadian governments(one I just mentioned)who have twisted the numbers in a way to give a different appearance.

And this is not uncommon among some corporations.

WWWTT

[Signals.Cpl]

It started a hell of a lot earlier than the Liberals in the 1980s and Mulroney didn't do much about it either. Our entire foreign service was gutted, while this myth that we are some sort of peacekeeping saviours of the world was perpetuated. It's all outlined in While Canada Slept: How We Lost Our Place in the World by Andrew Cohen.

I realize it started a lot earlier, but during the 90's the Liberals hit rock bottom and started digging when it comes to the military. It is under the Liberals that the CF had its numbers cut and budget cut but the mission tempo increased, and from what I hear going to the ranges was not much fun when you had to yell BANG to simulate "firing" your rifle because there was no money for rounds. The Liberals gutted the military while the country looked away and now the Conservatives are getting blamed for trying to bring the CF to a certain level where we can do the missions we are given.

[Signals.Cpl]

Then go start a thread about it.

WWWTT

This is the perfect thread about it, you complain about the conservatives for the sake of complaining without providing proof from the "lengthy" list that is non-existent.

[madmax]

I realize it started a lot earlier, but during the 90's the Liberals hit rock bottom and started digging when it comes to the military.

Yeah,my era and my friends era..especially the 90s.

It was close to yelling bang at times.

That said, everything was cut in the 90s and all were told to make due and the economy recovered.

Libs continued in their ways of committment in the 2000s increased missions on the McGuyver thread.

Regardless the Conservative should not be given a blank cheque for incompetences in military spending.