Election Night Discussion Thread

[Smallc]

The NDP actually did better than I expected. I was thinking they'd be reduced to about 20 seats.

[Keepitsimple]

Canadians spoke loud and clear. Perhaps now it will start to become somewhat clear as to what the Liberals actually plan to do. I can only hope that there are some influential voices of fiscal constraint behind the curtain....because in addition to the planned deficit of $10 billion per year, there are issues and promises that are clamouring for big dollars: Climate Change, First Nations, Provincial Talks demanding money because Provinces don't want to raise their own taxes (AKA extortion), CPP expansion (AKA Kathleen Wynne payback) to name only a few.

[PIK]

Congrats to the liberals , won a fair and square election. Now we wait and see what the new PM can do.

[msj]

Given the stats that came out this morning, wholesale trade for August was down and July was revised down, maybe this Keynesian appeal to infrastructure has caught on with the people who have been experiencing the "technical recession" that conservatives have been dismissibly sneering at.

If Canada contnues to put up weak numbers then it is hopefully proof that politicians should not downplay it. They should grab the bull by the horns, get concerned, and appeal to people.

Edited October 20, 2015 by msj

[Smallc]

Canadians spoke loud and clear. Perhaps now it will start to become somewhat clear as to what the Liberals actually plan to do.

I don't know how this isn't clear for their platform.

I can only hope that there are some influential voices of fiscal constraint behind the curtain....because in addition to the planned deficit of $10 billion per year, there are issues and promises that are clamouring for big dollars: Climate Change, First Nations, Provincial Talks

All of those (or 90% of them) are included in the numbers that you're talking about.

[Keepitsimple]

I don't know how this isn't clear for their platform.

All of those (or 90% of them) are included in the numbers that you're talking about.

I sure hope so.....then I shouldn't have anything much to worry about on the fiscal front.

[jbg]

Congrats to the liberals , won a fair and square election. Now we wait and see what the new PM can do.

Here's my "post mortem" from SOTB. Every country is entitled to its mistakes. We made it twice with Obama.

Democracy works, even when you don't like the result very much. As Churchill said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Certainly, this was no 1993-style dismantling of a party. The CPC will be a formidable opposition with 99 ridings.

That being said, elections to third or especially fourth terms (in our country) or mandates (in your country) are rare. Even Trudeau the Smarter was defeated by the totally inadequate Joke Lark and it took a few months of his flub-a-dub for Trudeau to get back in. Even then he didn’t try again. He went for his famous “walk in the snow” and let John Napier Turner face the carnage.

Another more important point; conservatives, whether Republicans in the U.S. or Conservatives (or their predecessor the PCPC in Canada) don’t do well in arranging for an ideological future. While there were plenty of Liberals such as Chretien and Martin, fully prepared by Trudeau the Smarter, waiting to pounce when Mulroney built and then destroyed his party, Mulroney and Harper prepared nobody (Campbell doesn’t count). Reagan left behind GWHB, a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Giuliani as New York Mayor and Pataki as New York Governor left behind no ideological successors. We have to do better in having greater depth. Harper was a one man band, and when people grew tired of him there was nowhere to go.

[Icebound]

Here's my "post mortem" from SOTB. Every country is entitled to its mistakes. We made it twice with Obama.

.... snip....

Another more important point; conservatives, whether Republicans in the U.S. or Conservatives (or their predecessor the PCPC in Canada) don’t do well in arranging for an ideological future. While there were plenty of Liberals such as Chretien and Martin, fully prepared by Trudeau the Smarter, waiting to pounce when Mulroney built and then destroyed his party, Mulroney and Harper prepared nobody (Campbell doesn’t count). Reagan left behind GWHB, a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Giuliani as New York Mayor and Pataki as New York Governor left behind no ideological successors. We have to do better in having greater depth. Harper was a one man band, and when people grew tired of him there was nowhere to go.

Why would that be?

Is it possible that after seeing their own ideology in operation for 4 or 10 years, they find out that even THEY cannot stand it anymore.... and thus nobody wants the job of perpetuating it?

...

[dre]

I sure hope so.....then I shouldn't have anything much to worry about on the fiscal front.

Actually I think the Liberals will probably pile on a fair ammount of debt. We are in the midst of a fairly deep and long structural recession, that has been hidden by the largest regime of monetary stimulus in Canadian history. The liberals will have to contend with the most overvalued realestate market in the world... a huge asset bubble that may collapse on their watch, and a decade of dangerous shortsighted monetary policy, very high levels of household debt, etc.

They will have to either let the recession/correction happen, or introduce further stimulus to prevent it.

[Wilber]

Strange, you should have been buying when it was even back well before Harper called the election.

Any changes now will be chump change.

About 40% of our equities are in USD stocks. I buy USD regularly as a kind of dollar cost averaging. I just bought more than I usually do at a one time. Time will tell.

[msj]

About 40% of our equities are in USD stocks. I buy USD regularly as a kind of dollar cost averaging. I just bought more than I usually do at a one time. Time will tell.

I agree time will tell.

But one should not mix politics with investing as they are like oil and water.

I doubt there is much, if any correlation, between party brand and the dollar.

But commodity prices and the US economy? Yeah, those will impact our dollar whoever is in power and there is nothing we can do about it.

[ToadBrother]

I agree time will tell.

But one should not mix politics with investing as they are like oil and water.

I doubt there is much, if any correlation, between party brand and the dollar.

But commodity prices and the US economy? Yeah, those will impact our dollar whoever is in power and there is nothing we can do about it.

Other than a small uptick in GDP from the Liberals' stimulus plan, I doubt we will see any significant effect on the markets due to this election. As a number of financial commentators have pointed out, there will be a net positive simply because it's a majority government, which guarantees a number of years of political stability.

[Wilber]

I agree time will tell.

But one should not mix politics with investing as they are like oil and water.

I doubt there is much, if any correlation, between party brand and the dollar.

But commodity prices and the US economy? Yeah, those will impact our dollar whoever is in power and there is nothing we can do about it.

It wasn't party brand because I agree with you on that score. None of the parties have any control over commodity prices and the US economy. It was the proposed deficit spending and how the currency markets might react to it.

[dre]

I agree time will tell.

But one should not mix politics with investing as they are like oil and water.

I doubt there is much, if any correlation, between party brand and the dollar.

But commodity prices and the US economy? Yeah, those will impact our dollar whoever is in power and there is nothing we can do about it.

Is there really NOTHING we can do about it? The extent to which commodity prices impact our dollar depends on how much we export, and how large a percentage of our economy those things are.

Currently we export a lot of oil, but we also IMPORT the majority of what we consume from countries like Venezuela. Seems to me it would make sense to build a pipeline from our oil to our existing refining capacity and stop importing oil. That would reduce exports as a percentage of our economy significantly.

And maybe since we DO have a lot of commodities we should be using them to bolster domestic production of other things.

[msj]

It wasn't party brand because I agree with you on that score. None of the parties have any control over commodity prices and the US economy. It was the proposed deficit spending and how the currency markets might react to it.

Is there really NOTHING we can do about it? The extent to which commodity prices impact our dollar depends on how much we export, and how large a percentage of our economy those things are.

Currently we export a lot of oil, but we also IMPORT the majority of what we consume from countries like Venezuela. Seems to me it would make sense to build a pipeline from our oil to our existing refining capacity and stop importing oil. That would reduce exports as a percentage of our economy significantly.

I agree this would have some impact, sure.

Probably much more than the impact of $9.5 billion deficits on a $1.6 trillion economy each year.

That is, deficits that are less than 0.01% of the economy aren't going to do anything whereas a change in the trade balance may do something (although I do not know what those numbers are so maybe not).

[Smeelious]

Currently we export a lot of oil, but we also IMPORT the majority of what we consume from countries like Venezuela. Seems to me it would make sense to build a pipeline from our oil to our existing refining capacity and stop importing oil. That would reduce exports as a percentage of our economy significantly.

Such pipelines exist. It's still cheaper to import crude to the east coast, and refined gas otherwise. The only way to fix such foolishness would be to require completely different specs on refined gasoline for Canada...but that would have the net impact of killing refining in the east cost.

[ToadBrother]

It wasn't party brand because I agree with you on that score. None of the parties have any control over commodity prices and the US economy. It was the proposed deficit spending and how the currency markets might react to it.

The proposed deficit spending is so small that I can't see how it's going to have any meaningful effect.

[Wilber]

The proposed deficit spending is so small that I can't see how it's going to have any meaningful effect.

It depends on whether the markets believe the proposals. Debt can become a habit, particularly if there is new program spending that has to be financed.

Maybe my memory is too long, or maybe the memory of others is too short. We'll see. I look at this election the same as I have every other and hope whoever won does a good job.

[ToadBrother]

It depends on whether the markets believe the proposals. Debt can become a habit, particularly if there is new program spending that has to be financed.

Maybe my memory is too long, or maybe the memory of others is too short. We'll see. I look at this election the same as I have every other and hope whoever won does a good job.

Or maybe you're just grossly exaggerating.

[Smallc]

Highest voter turnout since 1993:

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/10/20/high-voter-highest-since-1993.html

[Wilber]

Or maybe you're just grossly exaggerating.

Well, even if he does balance the budget in three years with only adding 30 billion to the deficit, at 2% it will take $600 million a year to finance that added debt. I am sure there will be people who will then say "$600 million, that's peanuts so let's keep borrowing". That's not grossly exaggerating, it is human nature. Even more so when it is not money for which they will be personally responsible when it comes to paying for it and the pressures of getting reelected become more important.

Edited to reflect the real cost of 30 billion at 2%. Dropped a decimal point.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Wilber

[Smallc]

Well, even if he does balance the budget in three years with only adding 30 billion to the deficit, at 2% it will take $60 million a year to finance that added debt.

So what happens when we have to spend the $17B extra (and more) on infrastructure with higher rates further down the line?

[ToadBrother]

Well, even if he does balance the budget in three years with only adding 30 billion to the deficit, at 2% it will take $60 million a year to finance that added debt. I am sure there will be people who will then say "$60 million, that's peanuts so let's keep borrowing". That's not grossly exaggerating, it is human nature. Even more so when it is not money for which they will be personally responsible when it comes to paying for it and the pressures of getting reelected become more important.

$60 million is peanuts. It's like having a five hundred thousand dollar mortgage and complaining because you used the credit card to buy a new fridge.

[Wilber]

$60 million is peanuts. It's like having a five hundred thousand dollar mortgage and complaining because you used the credit card to buy a new fridge.

30 billion at 2% is actually 600 million. Corrected the original post.

[Wilber]

So what happens when we have to spend the $17B extra (and more) on infrastructure with higher rates further down the line?

You will end up having to finance the 30 billion at those same rate if you have no plan to actually pay it off when those bonds become due.