Recession? Don't hold your breath as Trade Deficit plunges.

[On Guard for Thee]

The June numbers haven't come out yet. What we do have to go on is improving trade numbers, and slightly better job numbers than expected.

Yeah, I'll wait for the actual numbers.

[Smallc]

Yeah, I'll wait for the actual numbers.

You'll be happy to know (I'm sure), that growth is projected from at the worst July on by every forecast that I've seen.

[cybercoma]

The June numbers haven't come out yet. What we do have to go on is improving trade numbers, and slightly better job numbers than expected.

Better job numbers? Where? When? July's numbers showed absolutely no change in unemployment. That's not "better" numbers. The United States created 215,000 jobs in July and is sitting on 5.3% unemployment. As a proportion of our GDP to the US GDP, 6,600 jobs is about a quarter of where we should be and we're at 6.8% unemployment. Public and private sectors combined lost roughly 33,900 jobs last month. The reason for the gain in jobs is self-employment saw a huge increase at +40,500 jobs. Furthermore, we lost 17,300 full-time jobs while gaining 23,900 part-time jobs (likely casual/seasonal labour for the summer months). Take a look at those numbers and we're not talking about a rebound here. We're talking about no change in the broad numbers, but a shift in employment from well-paying full-time employment to precarious self-employment and part-time jobs. That, sir, is not an "improvement."

[cybercoma]

Oh and I forgot to mention that the participation rate continues to drop.

[Smallc]

Better than expected for the last two months given what's been happening since January.

Also, U.S. And Canadian unrmployment can't be compared by the simple number and you know that.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Smallc

[Smallc]

To be clear, I didn't say they were good job numbers, just that they were less bad than predicted, further clouding the number for June.

[PIK]

The numbers are only going to get better .

[cybercoma]

To be clear, I didn't say they were good job numbers, just that they were less bad than predicted, further clouding the number for June.

And the predictions are low. They're predicting bad numbers and meeting those predictions.

[Smallc]

And the predictions are low. They're predicting bad numbers and meeting those predictions.

All I'm saying is that it's hard to predict if June will have a negative or positive growth number.

[Keepitsimple]

Actually it's the low dollar and the relatively strong US economy that caused exports to pick up. But I think you are putting a lot of weight on your "if" about the projected GDP numbers due Sept. Oil ain't likely getting out of the doldrums anytime soon.

That's fair statement - because it is a big IF. How I see it though is that Harper's opponents have framed the economy as being in the depths of despair - so any sign of a turnaround will be good news for Harper - and of course, Canada......and it would put his opponents ramblings as either truthful - or something less than that. It's all a crapshoot because there are so many moving parts and the reality is that we have little control over many of them. I'm cautiously optimistic that we're on the road to some steady economic growth. It's a crazy time around the world.

[msj]

That's fair statement - because it is a big IF. How I see it though is that Harper's opponents have framed the economy as being in the depths of despair ....

It would help your cause if you provided some cites for your opinion that people have been framing Canada "as being in the depths of despair."

So, cites?

[PIK]

This are changing as we speak and by election time ,it will be a lot better.

[WIP]

There's been an endless backnforth over whether Harper caused this recession. Yes, Harper gets recession points because he loaded Canada's dice for petroleum extraction and export as much as possible. But, looking at the big picture..... the one thing neither liberals nor conservatives will admit to is a simple undisputed point made by Karl Marx 150 years ago - capitalist economic systems are fundamentally unstable and so will be prone to booms and busts. The onlly thing that can be adjusted is how high and how low!

One thing old Karl did not consider was that a time would come when the constant growth demands of capitalist systems would push right to the limits of what our planetary systems can provide for raw materials to feed our economic demands. And any reasonable assessment of where we are regarding a number of environmental and resource indicators would conclude that we - as a species are getting pretty damn near the limits of what we can demand from nature.

In recent times, I suspect that the declines in available unclaimed arable lands and resources, are the primary reason why the numbers of wars and military conflicts are increasing/ rather than declining, as all of the apostles of globalization told us 10 or 20 years ago, when the whole world economy was incorporated into one banking and trading regime.

When I watched the leaders' debate last week, what I found most nauseating was that...in spite of some party leaders focusing on the environment to varying degrees, they still treat environment as something separate from economics and other issues, and that fueling more economic growth should be job one.....only argument being over how to get it.

[Smallc]

Still no one has provided any proof as to how Harper favoured the oil and gas industry. It's nothing but paranoid rambling.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Smallc

[Michael Hardner]

In recent times, I suspect that the declines in available unclaimed arable lands and resources, are the primary reason why the numbers of wars and military conflicts are increasing/ rather than declining, as all of the apostles of globalization told us 10 or 20 years ago, when the whole world economy was incorporated into one banking and trading regime.

Having us all participate in the same system is a good thing, generally. I have heard that we have 10 years before we "run out" of... land, water, oil etc. Until all of the leaders feel that it's time to discuss this new reality, or at least a majority of them, then it's probably not likely that the people will believe that it's time.

[Argus]

Mr. Harper/Simple... no one believes you!

per the latest released StatsCan numbers... the fifth consecutive monthly decrease in real gross domestic product. Mr. Harper/Simple is this just the resource sector?

.

The chart you are posting shows minute percentage decreases in specific industries, on the order of 0.05% or 0.2%. They can look completely different from month to month, and many of the results are based upon the economic strength of the people we export to, notably the US, Europe and China.

Whether there is or is not a recession, technical or otherwise, can only be laid at the doorstep of a government if that government's policies can be said to be contributing to the recession. For example, Ontario's huge increases in taxes over the past ten years, and even greater increases in energy costs are certainly contributing to the woes of the manufacturing sector.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Argus

[msj]

Still no cites.

An entire thread based on the strawmen in keepitsimple's own mind.....

[WIP]

Having us all participate in the same system is a good thing, generally. I have heard that we have 10 years before we "run out" of... land, water, oil etc. Until all of the leaders feel that it's time to discuss this new reality, or at least a majority of them, then it's probably not likely that the people will believe that it's time.

Why didn't Europe's participation in a common trading system prevent WWI? It seems the exact opposite occurred when Germany became a rising economic power and England started feeling threatened by their growing economic clout....war was an inevitable result. And what we have today....a world with thousands of nuclear warheads, is the US seeing China on the rise and doing an "Asian Pivot," meaning trying to force China into a subordinate role or forcing them out of favoured trading status, and then there's the dangerous game of trying to stop Russia from gaining more economic influence in Europe and surrounding them with hostile forces. We've likely never been as close to WWIII all through the Cold War years, and yet nobody talks about it mainstream media.

All we did with land and water resources, was learn how to squeeze more out of an empty bottle:

1. oil drilling technology started being applied in the 70's to drill down into deep underground 'fossil' aquifers, and even rechargeable aquifers all over the world are being depleted at unsustainable rates. Even the US Interior Dept. is predicting that the largest aquifer in the US - the Oglalla Aquifer, may be depleted by the year 2030 at current rates of use....that's not very far away for the #1 agricultural producer to adjust to!

2. more land has continued to be taken from cutting down and destruction of tropical rainforests. The increasing numbers of species' extinctions is largely because wilderness zones are being demolished so fast in recent decades.

Neither of these trends can be continued to provide more food in the future. Even the most optimistic estimates point to declines in global food production even while populations keep increasing. These are crises created by capitalism and unregulated application of new technology, so the last thing we can expect to fix them is applying more of the same!

[Michael Hardner]

Why didn't Europe's participation in a common trading system prevent WWI?

It's a good question, but I see a great difference today:

- People are far less interested in engaging in war, conscription is largely a thing of the past and there are few gains to be had today

- The presence of business interests across national boundries, powerful interests, would mitigate them going to war. Would the US go to war with Canada to bomb General Motors in Oshawa ?

- Your point about WW3 is taken

Even the US Interior Dept. is predicting that the largest aquifer in the US - the Oglalla Aquifer, may be depleted by the year 2030 at current rates of use....that's not very far away for the #1 agricultural producer to adjust to!

I need a cite - as I have read about this but not seen 2030 as a date before.

Even the most optimistic estimates point to declines in global food production even while populations keep increasing. These are crises created by capitalism and unregulated application of new technology, so the last thing we can expect to fix them is applying more of the same!

And yet starvation is on the decline, wealth is increasing... I'm not sure what to do when the forecasts vary. If there is to be a conversation then let's start with some statistics that are believable. Post a cite for these two examples if you can.

There is a new responsibility for the masses to behave as a public, even as governments alternately treat us like children or act like children themselves. In order for us to take responsibility for OUR future, the people have to learn how to speak plainly, clearly and honestly to each other IMO.

[waldo]

The chart you are posting shows minute percentage decreases in specific industries, on the order of 0.05% or 0.2%. They can look completely different from month to month, and many of the results are based upon the economic strength of the people we export to, notably the US, Europe and China.

no - it's a most effective chart in countering you and your Harperite ilk who claim the "downturn" is strictly attached to the resource sector... now 5 straight months of decline under Harper. You're certainly encouraged to step up and actually support your unsubstantiated claims that the resource sector is the only one being affected... waiting:

[bush_cheney2004]

...And yet starvation is on the decline, wealth is increasing... I'm not sure what to do when the forecasts vary. If there is to be a conversation then let's start with some statistics that are believable. Post a cite for these two examples if you can.

True...what the usual Chicken Little doomsday predictions won't tell you is that population growth rates actually decline with development.

[socialist]

There's been an endless backnforth over whether Harper caused this recession. Yes, Harper gets recession points because he loaded Canada's dice for petroleum extraction and export as much as possible. But, looking at the big picture..... the one thing neither liberals nor conservatives will admit to is a simple undisputed point made by Karl Marx 150 years ago - capitalist economic systems are fundamentally unstable and so will be prone to booms and busts. The onlly thing that can be adjusted is how high and how low!

One thing old Karl did not consider was that a time would come when the constant growth demands of capitalist systems would push right to the limits of what our planetary systems can provide for raw materials to feed our economic demands. And any reasonable assessment of where we are regarding a number of environmental and resource indicators would conclude that we - as a species are getting pretty damn near the limits of what we can demand from nature.

In recent times, I suspect that the declines in available unclaimed arable lands and resources, are the primary reason why the numbers of wars and military conflicts are increasing/ rather than declining, as all of the apostles of globalization told us 10 or 20 years ago, when the whole world economy was incorporated into one banking and trading regime.

When I watched the leaders' debate last week, what I found most nauseating was that...in spite of some party leaders focusing on the environment to varying degrees, they still treat environment as something separate from economics and other issues, and that fueling more economic growth should be job one.....only argument being over how to get it.

Harper isn't even reducing transfers. He is merely reducing the rate of growth in transfers. Health transfers, for example, will grow at the rate of GDP growth, except with a 3% per year guaranteed minimum increase. Ontario has been increasing health spending at only 2.2% per year, so the feds will still be increasing their funding faster than the actual provincial health budget is increasing (i.e., the federal share of Ontario's health spending will grow even under the new formula, and has been growing very significantly with the roughly 6% federal transfer growth rate up to this year).

[WIP]

Harper isn't even reducing transfers. He is merely reducing the rate of growth in transfers. Health transfers, for example, will grow at the rate of GDP growth, except with a 3% per year guaranteed minimum increase. Ontario has been increasing health spending at only 2.2% per year, so the feds will still be increasing their funding faster than the actual provincial health budget is increasing (i.e., the federal share of Ontario's health spending will grow even under the new formula, and has been growing very significantly with the roughly 6% federal transfer growth rate up to this year).

Okay, I wasn't specifically referring to the transfer payments....which has been a debacle for decades...since the original formula for medicare was a 50/50 federal/provincial split on healthcare costs. As the costs of healthcare grew...often exponentially...the Feds, under both Liberal and PC governments have failed to add more, leaving the provinces with an increasing share of the burden to pay for.

Increasing healthcare spending to match the rate of inflation (which is a dubious barometer to begin with) isn't enough if the costs of drugs, medical treatments for an aging population keep increasing faster than the rate of inflation. At some point, it would be good to ask Canadians collectively how they want healthcare run to get the best optimal results for most people.

Off hand, since I am getting to an age where I know more and more people with cancer and heart disease and requiring expensive operations and treatments to give them a few more years....it would be good if people made an assessment of whether they should go after expensive medical interventions that may give a few more years or at least months...but at a badly degraded level of existence. All I know is I'll pull the plug if I end up having to live out my life stuck in a bed with tubes going in and out of my body. Many medical experts say the biggest cause of increasing healthcare costs today is directly related to the fact that a lot of sick people who would have already died a few decades earlier, are able to linger on. For many of these cases we should be talking hospice care rather than healthcare, and leave greater and greater burdens on younger people to pay for.

But, my main point is that Harper decided going in to office that he wanted Canada to follow Australia's model, and concentrate on extracting more resources to sell to the US and China. Now that many experts are concluding that we have likely already headed into a global recession that includes the US as well as China, Canada is in an even worse jackpot because our resources have to be sold cheaper as prices for commodities drops. Maybe that's why Harper was in a hurry to get this election out of the way before the real bad news has time to arrive!

[PIK]

WIP, ONT lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs ,all over one policy. Green energy. Imagine if Dalton took quebecs hydro deal for ONT, a lot of people could still be working.

Edited August 14, 2015 by PIK

[waldo]

ONT lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs, all over one policy. Green energy.

citation request:

here, you seem to be foundering so bad today... let the waldo help you out: see automation, globalization, exchange rates, low productivity, etc..