One of the reasons I won't be voting for Harper: Economic record

[marcus]

Do you speak English much? 8%. EIGHT PER CENT!

Do you think much? No need to answer that.

Try to digest this information - I don't want to argue with someone who denies Canada's reliance and dependency on oil - Especially under Harper:

StatsCan’s latest numbers on Canada’s trade balance, released Thursday, look positive on the face of it: Exports and imports both grew, and Canada’s trade deficit with the world shrank by more than half, to $435 million.

But dig a little deeper into the data, and what you see is a story of two different export sectors. As BMO chief economist Doug Porter put it in a client note Friday morning, “there is energy (doing just fine) and there is everything else (doing anything but fine).”

While energy exports have seen a $63.6-billion surplus for the past 12 months, everything else has seen a $72.9-billion deficit.

Check out this chart of Canada's trade balance for energy (blue) and everything else (red).

[69cat]

WIP, i understand the ideology you wish for is something i wish could happen too, but to do so you would be one of those people protesting against a dictatorship saying "give me freedom or give me death". Ultimately i beleive this would be true. Why cant a dictatorship or govrrnment rule 100% for the good of the citizens, the reason is everyone is an individual.

For additional thought (again, i am simply here to point out things to ponder), you dont have to cite example from books or places on the other side of the world. Go visit a Hutterite colony or at least about them and then you can cite data from within Canada. They are doing great financially, always growing, none of the members suffering, great people to chat with. When i am out at a colony doing some electrical troubleshooting and a fellow walks up while a couple of us are discussing something and there is a short exchange and that fellow moves on i say "he seems grumpy", and a discussion follows on why that is. I dont refer to a book that tells me what i should have heard, i think "hmmmmm" and carry on. Great model for a society but still not 100%. Ultimately nothing is 100% so maybe they have the best model, without me actively living there for say 5 or more years i wont know.

Fundamentally i think we agree that the bigger the "collective" the least it can respond to needs. So my opposition to full government regulation of everything. Perhaps a Hutterite colony is the best. However they are spread out and if each one bordered the next i will bet there will be another, not positive, dimension added.

This brings me to the CWB as a collective. 70 years ago i could see it benefit but more so as a means to market grain, but technology has solved that aspect. So something else to ponder when question "if a hate Harper". You are likely trying to reconcile, why, after i wrote how the CWB works, the vote was like 60% in favor of keeping it.

This brings me to three things when people present data

1. The numbers dont lie

2. People lie with numbers

3. The numbers dont tell the whole truth

I dont remember the exact wording on th vote but it was manipulative to aid in triggering a desired out come, and in favor of the CWB and not the farmer. All permit book holders were given a chance to vote and lots were retired ideology driven guys who havent sold a dollars worth in years. And it is one vote per farmer so i guy that sell $20,0000 in a year has same vote as one who sells $2,000,000.

I say Harper did the most democratic thing by eliminating an undemocratic entity.

So regarding the three things i mentioned about numbers, you should look at the info on the CWB vote and see if you can understand that, even the data and articles you read say one thing, when i say "look at it from this angle" do you change to "i love Harper" on this one topic.

Sorry for long winded posts, but it is necessary to flesh out where views originate.

[Argus]

Do you think much? No need to answer that.

Try to digest this information - I don't want to argue with someone who denies Canada's reliance and dependency on oil - Especially under Harper:

And I'm not going to bother with someone who presents a theory without even the laziest of efforts to back it up. The oil industry is less than 8% of our economy, considerably less actually. I asked you to present some evidence that it had grown as a percentage of the economy as compared to where it was in 2006 and you ran away like a scalded monkey hurling its own excrement behind it. I've previously asked you for evidence of how Harper focused on the oil industry to the exclusion of all others and you ran away from that question too.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

And I'm not going to bother with someone who presents a theory without even the laziest of efforts to back it up. The oil industry is less than 8% of our economy, considerably less actually. I asked you to present some evidence that it had grown as a percentage of the economy as compared to where it was in 2006 and you ran away like a scalded monkey hurling its own excrement behind it. I've previously asked you for evidence of how Harper focused on the oil industry to the exclusion of all others and you ran away from that question too.

This, from the guy who claims not to insult?

[Argus]

This, from the guy who claims not to insult?

Where was the insult in pointing out that you need to support a theory with actual evidence? If you're saying X is worse than it was before then you need to know what it was before, and if you're saying its worse because of Harper you have to show what he's done. A lot of people on the Left here evidently feel no need to back up their paranoid delusions about Harper being the font of all evil.

And btw, I never claimed not to insult.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

And I'm not going to bother with someone who presents a theory without even the laziest of efforts to back it up. The oil industry is less than 8% of our economy, considerably less actually. I asked you to present some evidence that it had grown as a percentage of the economy as compared to where it was in 2006 and you ran away like a scalded monkey hurling its own excrement behind it. I've previously asked you for evidence of how Harper focused on the oil industry to the exclusion of all others and you ran away from that question too.

You can't deny that the Tories' "grand plan" was, until oil prices began to collapse last year, to make Canada an "energy superpower" (their words). To be true, a lot of this was just populist rhetoric, but considering the treatment of anyone who even questioned unconstrained oil sands development, it's hard not to at least say the Tories put considerable political emphasis on fossil fuel development. Heck, a year and a half ago, lots of Tory commentators were talking about shoving new pipelines down British Columbia's throat whether the populace wanted it or not.

So while I think you're right in real terms; that oil, while an important part of the economy, was never more than a fraction of economic activity, others are also correct in pointing out that the Tories put an astonishing amount of political capital into oil development.

[marcus]

And I'm not going to bother with someone who presents a theory without even the laziest of efforts to back it up. The oil industry is less than 8% of our economy, considerably less actually. I asked you to present some evidence that it had grown as a percentage of the economy as compared to where it was in 2006 and you ran away like a scalded monkey hurling its own excrement behind it. I've previously asked you for evidence of how Harper focused on the oil industry to the exclusion of all others and you ran away from that question too.

The percentage is a moot point.

The evidence of our economy being reliant on oil is in front of us. The CAD does whatever oil prices do.

Oh and I have also presented how Canada's net trade balance outside of the energy sector has nose dived, but of course, you prefer to talk about monkey's feces.

Here is your last opportunity to respond to this:

StatsCan’s latest numbers on Canada’s trade balance, released Thursday, look positive on the face of it: Exports and imports both grew, and Canada’s trade deficit with the world shrank by more than half, to $435 million.

But dig a little deeper into the data, and what you see is a story of two different export sectors. As BMO chief economist Doug Porter put it in a client note Friday morning, “there is energy (doing just fine) and there is everything else (doing anything but fine).”

While energy exports have seen a $63.6-billion surplus for the past 12 months, everything else has seen a $72.9-billion deficit.

Check out this chart of Canada's trade balance for energy (blue) and everything else (red).

[69cat]

I think Argus agrees with the list of three realities when people present data with their own interpretation (ie the raw data) i posted above.

If you are going to cite data, graphs and numbers you better darn well be able to back up how that data backs your point. If you cant even make an attempt (even though wrong, at least show some degree of knowledge of what you post) then dont post it.

Case in point, under the "Harper economy" the number of poor has increased. Is that true or false? Surely someone can come up with charts to support it.

Now i say look back at the realities if presenting data i mentioned a few posts up.

Guess what, i can have $2,000,000 in my chequing account in no different way than you have $2000 (ie nothing devious or manipulation) and i can make one lifestyle choice next year, something everyone plans to do eventually, still have my $2M in the same account and become one of the "poor" in every sense to meet the data requirements. Anyone care to take a shot and claim i am bs'ing?

Edited September 21, 2015 by 69cat

[Argus]

You can't deny that the Tories' "grand plan" was, until oil prices began to collapse last year, to make Canada an "energy superpower" (their words). To be true, a lot of this was just populist rhetoric, but considering the treatment of anyone who even questioned unconstrained oil sands development, it's hard not to at least say the Tories put considerable political emphasis on fossil fuel development.

Sure they did. What sane government wouldn't have? Is there a government somewhere in the world which did its best to discourage oil and gas development and export? Fossil fuels are why this country's economy barely skipped a beat during the financial crisis. But they similarly encouraged every other profitable industry, especially those which employed lots of Canadians at high salaries.

Heck, a year and a half ago, lots of Tory commentators were talking about shoving new pipelines down British Columbia's throat whether the populace wanted it or not.

And they should have. Screw BC and its NIMBY paranoia. Not being able to export our oil, and cramming it all into one pipeline into the US midwest was costing our economy tens of billions of dollars. All those BCers love their social programs, but don't want to have anything to do with the icky industries which pay for them. We've been running pipelines through this country for decades without any major issues. Suddenly it's an environmental nightmare to the precious hand-wringers (who still like to go out and drive their cars, of course).

So while I think you're right in real terms; that oil, while an important part of the economy, was never more than a fraction of economic activity, others are also correct in pointing out that the Tories put an astonishing amount of political capital into oil development.

The only reason the Tories had to put any political capital into it was the astonishing amount of political capital the Left put into halting it. Of course the Tories had to push back against that! The oil industry had become the best functioning part of the economy, particularly as the Liberals were and continue to do their best to destroy Ontario's manufacturing sector.

[69cat]

Marcus, what products are grouped in the "energy sector" you post and what % is oil of that grouping?

[Argus]

The percentage is a moot point.

Then your entire theory is a moot point, since nothing shows it to be true.

[marcus]

Then your entire theory is a moot point, since nothing shows it to be true.

The "theory" that Harper has been giving incentives to the oil and gas industry above and beyond any other sector? The theory that our trade balance in sectors outside of the energy sector have dropped drastically since Harper came to power?

It's not just a theory. These are facts that have already been demonstrated.

[69cat]

Again marcus, what sectors are outside the energy sector, what is within the energy sector so that we can even discuss "Harpers fault".

Here is one for you, how will your chart look if the idiots in Ontario get their act together and run their books/economy/budgets with the slightest intelligence. I mean adding $140B to the Ontario tax payer in less than 10 years is something, is it not? By the way, the provincial government manages its own affairs, not the federal gov.

According to your chart i would say Ontario (manufacturing) is the source of your imbalance. But then i dont claim to understand the data you provide so i can claim anything i want.

[Argus]

The "theory" that Harper has been giving incentives to the oil and gas industry above and beyond any other sector? The theory that our trade balance in sectors outside of the energy sector have dropped drastically since Harper came to power?

It's not just a theory. These are facts that have already been demonstrated.

Lots of sectors have had problems since the Financial crisis and the lessening need of China for resources. None of that is Harper's fault.

You have not even demonstrated that the oil and gas industry is larger as a percentage of the economy, than it was when he took over, let alone that it has been given tremendous 'incentives' above and beyond what other industries get. You have demonstrated nothing other than your unreasoning hate for Stephen Harper and anyone who doesn't share your Leftist ideological beliefs.

[marcus]

tremendous 'incentives' above and beyond what other industries get.

This has already been mentioned - Hopefully this won't be another waste of a chance for you to learn:

IMF Pegs Canada's Fossil Fuel Subsidies at $34 Billion

In such giveaways we're a world leader, a fact rarely noted when federal budgets are debated.

While Canada slashes budgets for research, education and public broadcasting, there is one part of our economy that enjoys remarkable support from the Canadian taxpayer: the energy sector.

The International Monetary Fund estimates that energy subsidies in Canada top an incredible $34 billion each year in direct support to producers and uncollected tax on externalized costs.

In comparison to other countries, Canada provides more subsidies to petroleum as a proportion of government revenue than any developed nation on Earth besides the United States and Luxembourg.

..

A country can be judged on what it chooses to tax and what it chooses to subsidize. And by that yardstick, this nation currently seems to care more about cheap energy than almost anything else.

Edited September 22, 2015 by marcus

[drummindiver]

Of course Canada offers more subsidies than other countries besides the states.

Why, you may ask.

Because of the top ten oil producing countries, only Canada and the states haven't nationalized their oil.

..btw, we should slash the one plus billion a year to public brain washing broadcasting...

Disingenuos. But coming from the Tyee, not surprising.

"There have been accusations that The Tyee has a left-wing bias due to its ties to big labour. In response, Beers says "I'm grateful the union movement has invested in media diversity. That's all they are though: one of our investors. I have total guaranteed autonomy as Tyee editor, which certainly wasn't the case, say, when I was an editor at CanWest."[3]

Edited September 22, 2015 by drummindiver

[69cat]

Ok marcus, you are going after the deficit shown by the graph without giving any reasonable explaination other than its oil. And your premise for your arguement is expensive oil being sold into the market place is bad for Canada. First of all, rework your graph with $40 oil and see what happens.

Secondly, those things that you dont have on your hate list are doing well also such as mining and electricity. And so when those area do well requiring more equipment to be brought into Canada you get an imbalance on the other side. But when big companies pull out of Canada and no longer provide those items it is rather self evident isnt it.

So your premise is that all industry that is doing well should be shut down, thus greatly reducing the "non energy" deficit and everything will be ok. Yeah, lets bring back the CWB so farmers buy less big ticket items made in the USA and your new economy will be awesome. Good lord, i hope you are not running for an NDP MP but with that thinking there probably is someone.

[Bonam]

The problem we have isnt this mild recession, its a much deeper and longer recession thats on its way.

Im not one of those guys that goes on and on blaming Harper or any other politician for poor economic performance or crediting them for good economic performance. The Harper governments economic record is a textbook example from the Keynesian playbook... when a recession hits you ease credit, dump a mountain of new synthetic money into the economy by lowering interest rates, and hope that consumers borrow and spend to keep things afloat or at least lessen the impact.

Thats what Harper did, and thats what ANY prime minister would have done. Its a very conventional approach.

If anything my knock on the current government is not that they presided over this mild recession, its that they tried too hard to prevent one. People are looking at the wrong things... The problem for Canada isnt this mild recession, is that the government and central bank has put us in an extremely precarious position moving forward.

The central bank has fired nearly all its guns, and interest rates have been pegged at historical lows. Heres a graph showing the BOC's overnight rate for the last decade or so......

Now... lets get back to all that household debt because these things are interconnected. A lot of that debt accumulated as a result of Canadians borrowing against the equity in their homes, which of course there was plenty of because we have been in the middle of a massive realestate bubble. Note that in 2007 the American realestate bubble began to deflate.. the US took its medicine. But our bubble just kept on getting bigger because of all that cheap easy credit.

So Canadians have to ask themselves... what is going to happen when the inevitable correction comes? Most of their home equity is going to vanish, leaving them either unwilling, or unable to borrow money to spend on consumption - and this is a huge problem in an economy that is based so heavily on domestic consumption. New housing starts will slow to a crawl which could decimate the construction industry.

People credit the Canadian central bank and government with avoiding most of the great recession but all we did was kick the can down the road a bit. Theres a good chance its still coming. Canada looks a lot like the US did in about 2005 before the crash hit... we have short sighted monetary policy, rates way too low for way too long, and a gigantic realestate bubble.

Your argument is that Canadian asset prices have inflated because Canada kept its interest rates low. You illustrate this by comparing the US housing bubble popping while the Canadian one did not. And yet, the USA has kept its interest rates even lower than Canada.

And indeed, as one might expect given that the US has lower (basically zero) interest rates, the US stock market has gone up considerably since the recession, reaching all time highs in 2015 that were ~40% higher than the 2008 high. Meanwhile the Canadian stock market only barely managed to re-touch 2008 highs before declining again. Of course, I wouldn't attribute the whole difference to interest rates, but they were likely a contributing factor, since capital has been essentially free in the US for nearly a decade.

But housing has done the opposite. Clearly, there's a factor at work besides interest rates here. I think the main difference is the relatively large portion of Canadian real estate that is purchased by foreign investors.

[69cat]

Bonan, out of curiosity, do you see the same degree of foreign buy-in around the US? Locally i know of a pulp mill bought by an asian group, Yan Coal (chinese) is very close to going ahead with a potash mine right in my area and of course farm land has been driven up by out of province/country investors (chinese mainly) to the point land is no longer a smart buy for a farmer. Australian farmers say the same thing with resources (coal mentioned) and the farm sector. Does the US have policies to limit such purchasing i wonder.

Regarding the stock market comparison i think you need to go back earlier than 2008 to compare as the US was suffering where as Canada was ticking along at that time so it would naturally be true that the US had more to gain post-2008 than Canada.

[Argus]

This has already been mentioned - Hopefully this won't be another waste of a chance for you to learn:

I already dealt with this nonsense a few pages back.

Almost all of that money, according to this clearly very, very Left wing study, comes in the form of "Uncollected taxes on externalized costs". What the hell is that? Well, apparently they feel the oil and gas industry should be taxed for " traffic accidents, carbon emissions, pollution and road congestion" !

Edited September 22, 2015 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

I already dealt with this nonsense a few pages back.

Almost all of that money, according to this clearly very, very Left wing study, comes in the form of "Uncollected taxes on externalized costs". What the hell is that? Well, apparently they feel the oil and gas industry should be taxed for " traffic accidents, carbon emissions, pollution and road congestion" !

And again, what precisely is the problem with taxing any commodity for the damage it does. Perhaps traffic accidents is a bit of a stretch, since electric cars and bicycles are not immune to such occurrences, but since pretty much every climatologist out there directly links the use of fossil fuels to CO2 emissions, and CO2 emissions to trapping more heat in the lower atmosphere, and trapping heat in the lower atmosphere to greatly exaggerated climate change and rising oceanic acidity levels. In other words, fossil fuels cause environmental damage and affect global climate.

Think of it as a sin tax.

[marcus]

I already dealt with this nonsense a few pages back.

Almost all of that money, according to this clearly very, very Left wing study,

Ah yes. The clearly very, very left wing IMF. Get a grip.

What is "uncollected taxes"? You don't get it? Part of it is taxes that Harper does not collect from the oil industry because of the subsidies and tax breaks that Harper loves to give his pals. Taxes that should be collected just like they are from other companies.

$840 million in producer support to oil companies through a constellation of provincial and federal incentives to encourage fossil fuel extraction. This brought total petroleum subsidies in Canada in 2011 to $20.23 billion

In comparison to other countries, Canada provides more subsidies to petroleum as a proportion of government revenue than any developed nation on Earth besides the United States and Luxembourg.

Edited September 22, 2015 by marcus

[dre]

Your argument is that Canadian asset prices have inflated because Canada kept its interest rates low. You illustrate this by comparing the US housing bubble popping while the Canadian one did not. And yet, the USA has kept its interest rates even lower than Canada.

And indeed, as one might expect given that the US has lower (basically zero) interest rates, the US stock market has gone up considerably since the recession, reaching all time highs in 2015 that were ~40% higher than the 2008 high. Meanwhile the Canadian stock market only barely managed to re-touch 2008 highs before declining again. Of course, I wouldn't attribute the whole difference to interest rates, but they were likely a contributing factor, since capital has been essentially free in the US for nearly a decade.

But housing has done the opposite. Clearly, there's a factor at work besides interest rates here. I think the main difference is the relatively large portion of Canadian real estate that is purchased by foreign investors.

Foreign demand is a factor but THAT is supercharged by low interest rates at all.

And the government/boc role is not limited to interest rates. The number of CMHC mortgages has almost tripled since 2006. These are mortgages to Canadian residents purchasing their principle residence. These are particularly scary because they only require 5% down payment. Only a slight correction in the housing market would put them underwater, and the tax payer is completely on the hook for them... even though it was banks that made the money doing the lending.

The housing bubble is not an accident... its government policy.

[Argus]

And again, what precisely is the problem with taxing any commodity for the damage it does. Perhaps traffic accidents is a bit of a stretch, since electric cars and bicycles are not immune to such occurrences, but since pretty much every climatologist out there directly links the use of fossil fuels to CO2 emissions, and CO2 emissions to trapping more heat in the lower atmosphere, and trapping heat in the lower atmosphere to greatly exaggerated climate change and rising oceanic acidity levels. In other words, fossil fuels cause environmental damage and affect global climate.

Think of it as a sin tax.

If you want to go to that extent why not tax the auto industry for congestion and pollution and accidents? Oh, because they're in central Canada and that would cost too many votes... Why not tax the aircraft makers and airlines for pollution and accidents? Why not charge the meat producers for heart attacks?

The fossil fuel industry is supplying the only economically feasible energy resource this country has unless people want more nuclear or can find new rivers to dam. What, you want them to stop? Seriously? In any event, the discussion is not about the merits of taxing this or that industry. He is quoting a report which is stretching to make up 'subsidies' for the energy sector so he can blame Harper for it. He's doing this because he can't find anything else to support his contention that Harper is responsible for 'putting all our eggs in one basket' and subsidizing the energy sector to the exclusion of all else.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Ah yes. The clearly very, very left wing IMF. Get a grip.

Any report which describes the lack of taxation for auto accidents as a subsidy to the energy industry is self admitting to a heavy bias against the energy industry, and that means Left wing.

$840 million in producer support to oil companies through a constellation of provincial and federal incentives to encourage fossil fuel extraction. This brought total petroleum subsidies in Canada in 2011 to $20.23 billion[/size][/font][/color][/b]

And how much is federal and how much provincial? How much has been in place for a very long time, and how much is new? Most of the subsidies and tax help mentioned in this cite go back to the nineties, sometimes even to the seventies. How is Harper to blame for that?

And what is the comparison to the mining industry or other industries? You don't know, do you?

Your entire theory is that Harper has been gifting the energy industry with a vast amount of subsidies to the exclusion of other industries. You can't possibly make that claim until you know the difference between what is available now vs when he took power, and what is available vs other industries. And you don't.