Wilber Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 Wrong. The government can add to both. Private debt is heavily controlled by the government and banks through incentives to borrow, programs like the CMHC, monetary policy, and credit conditions. Harper's real debt legacy is that 1.7 trillion dollars in household debt which will be an anchor chained to our legs for decades to come. Only you can add to your personal debt. Don't be blaming government if you decide to borrow more than you can reasonably pay back. What has this government done to change this policy? They are relying on it just as much as the last government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 It's almost as if revenues were down, or something. It's opportunities that are going down. Less fish, smaller trees, fewer people catching and cutting these...less manufacturing and productivity gains. It seems pretty obvious to me what's happening. Primary industries are now sold as a thing of the past with hewers and drawers being encouraged to polish each others shoes for a living instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 It's almost as if revenues were down, or something. They're really not down that much at all. In fact, I haven't seen any evidence they're down at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 They're really not down that much at all. In fact, I haven't seen any evidence they're down at all. According to Finance, they're down $12B for next year. Where's your counter evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 Only you can add to your personal debt. This is a micro-economic view that's irrelevant in the context of a greater economy. When the government/banks set near zero interest rates, and offer tax payer backed 5% down mortgages, household debt WILL go up. Don't be blaming government if you decide to borrow more than you can reasonably pay back. We absolutely SHOULD blame governments when their policies create massive credit and asset bubbles. What has this government done to change this policy? I don't see anything at all yet. The liberals will almost certainly rack up a lot less consumer debt simply because Canadians now realize exactly how bad the economy is. They recognize its the worst economy in decades, so at some point they will get spooked and start trying to rebuilding their savings. But I fully expect the Liberals to continue the massive borrowing and easing that we saw from the Conservatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 According to Finance, they're down $12B for next year. Where's your counter evidence. You said they were already down. Now you're saying these are projections. But projections are based on what numbers you put into them. GIGO. If you put in low numbers you'll get low revenues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 You said they were already down. Now you're saying these are projections. But projections are based on what numbers you put into them. GIGO. If you put in low numbers you'll get low revenues. And if you don't have the low revenues, bye bye deficit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 And if you don't have the low revenues, bye bye deficit. Revenues from what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 And if you don't have the low revenues, bye bye deficit. Only if you decide to live within your means, whatever they are. Otherwise it is just a case of lets go borrow more money because I might get a raise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 Only if you decide to live within your means, whatever they are. Otherwise it is just a case of lets go borrow more money because I might get a raise. What evidence do we have that they'll spend more than they budgeted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 (edited) And if you don't have the low revenues, bye bye deficit. The PBO back in December was projecting deficit numbers out past 2021, in stark contrast to the finance offices projected budget surplus numbers starting in 2019, and declared that the Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is relying on too rosy an outlook, particularly for the years 2019-20 and 2020-21 where there was an 11 billion dollar disparity between the PBO and the Liberal's projections. I'm not sure what crystal ball the Liberals are gazing into when coming up with their projections, and apparently neither does the Parliamentary Budget Officer, as even he has been left scratching his head in bewilderment. One thing I do know, I won't be putting much stock in any of Morneau's projections from here on in. I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any budget surpluses 5 years from now!! And for the record, I'm not necessarily against some budget deficits if revenues are down. It's likely adjustments would have been made regardless of who is in charge. I would however, like to see some restraint on spending as well. Edited March 29, 2016 by Spiderfish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 (edited) And in their recent fiscal update and budget, they used numbers FAR BELOW industry averages. The private sector economists expect lower deficits. Edited March 29, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 What evidence do we have that they'll spend more than they budgeted? What does that have to do with living within your means? If it was just a matter of not spending more than you budget, just make the budget bigger, it is just a number and has nothing to do whether you are living within your means. If you have to borrow in order to meet your daily expenses, you are not living within your means, nor is borrowing based on what you might make in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 What does that have to do with living within your means? If it was just a matter of not spending more than you budget, just make the budget bigger, it is just a number and has nothing to do whether you are living within your means. If you have to borrow in order to meet your daily expenses, you are not living within your means, nor is borrowing based on what you might make in the future. None of this is necessarily true. Borrowing based on projected future income is a normal and often prudent thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 What does that have to do with living within your means? If it was just a matter of not spending more than you budget, just make the budget bigger, it is just a number and has nothing to do whether you are living within your means. If you have to borrow in order to meet your daily expenses, you are not living within your means, nor is borrowing based on what you might make in the future. Your post would make even more sense if it was applied to an accounting process that didn't deliberately avoid and edit the environment out of the picture. I sometimes think I'm one of the most conservative minded people on this board. If we only had another planet we could point to and then borrow based on what we might make there...like pie in the sky so to speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 None of this is necessarily true. Borrowing based on projected future income is a normal and often prudent thing to do.No it isn't because if you projections are wrong you have just dug yourself a deeper hole. You have committed yourself to maintaining programs that you couldn't pay for in the first place and will now have even less chance of paying for in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 And if you don't have the low revenues, bye bye deficit. No. What you do is you increase your spending. After all, you've already convinced people that the big deficit wasn't your fault, that it was there when you arrived. Why not just keep heaping stuff on the pile? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 What evidence do we have that they'll spend more than they budgeted? They haven't budgeted for some of the things they've said they'll do. The health accord, the money they just promised for senior home care, the eight million recommendations from the native commision they've promised to follow, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 No. What you do is you increase your spending. After all, you've already convinced people that the big deficit wasn't your fault, that it was there when you arrived. Why not just keep heaping stuff on the pile? So you're making things up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 No it isn't because if you projections are wrong you have just dug yourself a deeper hole. You have committed yourself to maintaining programs that you couldn't pay for in the first place and will now have even less chance of paying for in the future. That's why you try to have good projections. Taking such an ideological stance on borrowing is really just silly. ALL borrowing is based on the projection that you will be able to maintain the debt. This is true whether you are taking out a mortgage to buy a home, or a loan for a new piece of business equipment, or a car, or a TV. Same thing goes for spending tens of billions of dollars on fighter jets btw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) ALL borrowing is based on the projection that you will be able to maintain the debt.And all borrowing comes with a risk if one cannot maintain the debt. That is why most prudent businesses do not borrow to give the staff raises. The borrow to manage cash flow or buy capital assets that they hope will generate money in the future. With a country the government should not be borrowing to increase entitlement programs. The only time borrowing for such purposes is acceptable is in the short term when a recession has temporarily reduced government revenues. If economic times are changing and the entitlement program demands exceed the growth of government revenue then the programs need to be cut or taxes raised. Refusing to do that simply ensures that Canada will be back facing a debt crisis in 15-20 years. Edited March 30, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 That's why you try to have good projections. Taking such an ideological stance on borrowing is really just silly. ALL borrowing is based on the projection that you will be able to maintain the debt. This is true whether you are taking out a mortgage to buy a home, or a loan for a new piece of business equipment, or a car, or a TV. Same thing goes for spending tens of billions of dollars on fighter jets btw. The present government is borrowing money to expand entitlement programs with no idea if they will be able to support them without more borrowing. This not the same as buying a home or taking out a loan for a piece of equipment. It is a never ending obligation that will never be paid off. You don't buy a home or take out a loan with the idea that you will never pay it off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 The only time borrowing for such purposes is acceptable is in the short term when a recession has temporarily reduced government revenues. Or to prevent a looming recession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 So you're making things up. How am I making things up? Where is the money in the budget for these things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 31, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 So now we know the economy is bouncing back without any government assistance. Where is the justification for this $30 billion budget deficit? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/growth/canadian-economic-growth-jumps-dimming-chances-of-rate-cut/article29469477/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.