31,000 jobs lost in Canada.

[Argus]

Exactly, that is why we need to have huge import duties because the multi-national corporations own the politicians who created this free for them trade to trade our economy (i.e. the average Joe) down. Don't like to have fair wages, fair safety practices, environmental responsibility, then just outsource to a nation that doesn't protect workers, human rights, or the the environment. The flat screen that everyone is whining about the unemployed having is not an excuse to make it cheap so the unemployed can have it.

Huge import fees. Where have I heard that before? Oh, right, it was an idea that spread around the world in the nineteen twenties. Most of us learned that this is bad. If Canada doesn't allow imports nobody will buy our exports either. And that wall screen won't be the only thing unobtainable for poorer or even middle class Canadians. Almost every manufactured item people use will double, triple or quadruple in cost.

[dre]

I've also read economics texts.

Yeah right.

[Argus]

Yeah right.

I won't say they weren't terribly boring, but I did learn a few things. And it was either Economics classes or more English.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Argus

[dre]

And that wall screen won't be the only thing unobtainable for poorer or even middle class Canadians. Almost every manufactured item people use will double, triple or quadruple in cost.

There's no question that free trade has brought down the cost of non-durable consumables. But that measure is not the end-all be-all of economic health.

We had much faster wage growth and also good per capita GDP growth before free trade. We gave up an awful lot to get those cheap TV sets.

Further more these agreements have resulted in trade deficits which impact both the current account and the national debt...

So its no surprise that the free trade era coincides with huge growth in public debt.

We run trade deficits with 14 of our biggest 20 trade partners, and this causes capital flight which is measured by the current account

It current sits at 16 billion dollars in the negative. This is all capital flight... Money that has flowed out of the country VS money that has flowed in. All that money could have been invested in Canada.

So that TV set isnt as cheap as you think, in fact you will keep paying for it for decades after the TV no longer works. In any case at best Free Trade has been a mixed bag for Canada.

Edited August 15, 2016 by dre

[dre]

I won't say they weren't terribly boring, but I did learn a few things. And it was either Economics classes or more English.

Yeah, sorry that was rude of me anyways.

[Argus]

Yeah, sorry that was rude of me anyways.

No problem. I don't pretend to be any kind of economic expert. I took maybe four economics courses in college, mostly because they were pretty easy, but that was a long time ago.

[dre]

No problem. I don't pretend to be any kind of economic expert. I took maybe four economics courses in college, mostly because they were pretty easy, but that was a long time ago.

Same kinda thing here. Its a bit of hobby so Iv done a bunch of reading. But not an expert either.

[Argus]

There's no question that free trade has brought down the cost of non-durable consumables. But that measure is not the end-all be-all of economic health.

We had much faster wage growth and also good per capita GDP growth before free trade. We gave up an awful lot to get those cheap TV sets.

Further more these agreements have resulted in trade deficits which impact both the current account and the national debt...

I don't want to make it sound like I'm a big fan of free trade. I'm very dubious about many aspects of it. Still, I think our major problems come from subsidizing poorly run businesses and uneconomical industries instead of using that money to inspire productivity increases and technological innovation at those we can succeed in. Yes, there have been some cheating by other countries, notably China. Yes, there has been a disturbing tendency of individual US states to lure away business by essentially providing a rules-free, low tax environment which is hostile to unions and environmental regulations. But we can't survive by putting up walls around the borders and catering only to ourselves.

And don't downplay cheap goods. When i was a teenager we got our first window air conditioner by renting one for the summer. I can't remember the cost but I think it was something like $400 - to rent. Now you can buy one for a hundred bucks. That's the kind of difference we've seen in the affordability of manufactured goods. We simply can't compete with that, and if we lock out foreign producers and build our own it means many, many people aren't going to be able to afford the kind of things and lifestyle they have today.

[Argus]

Same kinda thing here. Its a bit of hobby so Iv done a bunch of reading. But not an expert either.

I honestly feel economics ought to be a standard part of the high school curriculum, along with the essentials of financial management.

[Argus]

Shockingly, Andrew Coyne finds all that stimulus money hasn't stimulated anything but the debt. And after assessing their complete failure to stimulate the economy, the Liberals seem to think the answer is ... more stimulus!

The Parliamentary Budget Officer reports spending jumped nearly six per cent in the first quarter of the current fiscal year over the last. Spending on “infrastructure,” in particular, is pouring out at a frantic rate, up 19 per cent, not directly but handed out in grants and contributions to third-parties: a spree the PBO describes as “unprecedented.” Over the summer, the National Post’s David Akin reckons the Liberals handed out 1,447 cheques worth a combined $7.8 billion. On the tax side, meanwhile, there was the celebrated middle-class tax cut, introduced last December, and increases in child benefits.

And the result of all these billions in borrowed munificence? Diddly

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-fiscal-stimulus-hasnt-revived-the-economy-but-liberals-know-what-to-do-more-stimulus

[Smallc]

There's a few points here:

The Liberals were criticized for lowballing their budget figures. It seems they've been vindicated.

The rate of growth in June and July was in fact very high.

Without all of those extra billions in the economy (including net lower taxes that Conservatives refuse to acknowledge) the rate of growth would be far worse.

Again with your opinion columns. Andrew Coyne and Margaret Wente have agendas as members of the evil 'liberal media'. We all know that, except you apparently.

[Argus]

The rate of growth in June and July was in fact very high.

Without all of those extra billions in the economy (including net lower taxes that Conservatives refuse to acknowledge) the rate of growth would be far worse.

The rate of growth was NOT very high, just higher than expected, but that has been attributed by all business news stories I have seen to oil production coming back on line after the fires in Alberta.

[Smallc]

The rate of growth was NOT very high, just higher than expected, but that has been attributed by all business news stories I have seen to oil production coming back on line after the fires in Alberta.

So it's your contention that spending money in the economy doesn't improve the economy? Did you ever open an economics text?

Also, the rate of growth being higher than expected (the exact word used being surges) kind of shows that you and Andrew Coyne are simply taking uninformed ideological positions.

[Argus]

So it's your contention that spending money in the economy doesn't improve the economy? Did you ever open an economics text?

Quite a few of them. And you? Can you show me cases where borrowing tens of billions to boost the economy was successful outside of wartime?

Also, the rate of growth being higher than expected (the exact word used being surges) kind of shows that you and Andrew Coyne are simply taking uninformed ideological positions.

I'm assuming that came from the Globe and Mail article. Here is what it actually said:

The strong July result was driven chiefly by a continued recovery in oil production and petroleum-product manufacturing, following the devastating wildfires that crippled Alberta’s huge oil sands region throughout May and into early June.

Given your party is definitely no friend to oil and gas production or any other natural resource industries I don't think you can take any credit.

[Smallc]

Quite a few of them. And you? Can you show me cases where borrowing tens of billions to boost the economy was successful outside of wartime?

Spending money in the economy always increases it's size if that money wouldn't have been in the economy otherwise. The argument against it is that it has to be paid back, reducing potential economic output later, not during the spending.

I'm assuming that came from the Globe and Mail article. Here is what it actually said:

The strong July result was driven chiefly by a continued recovery in oil production and petroleum-product manufacturing, following the devastating wildfires that crippled Alberta’s huge oil sands region throughout May and into early June.

Given your party is definitely no friend to oil and gas production or any other natural resource industries I don't think you can take any credit.

Because we all know that your talking points have been absolutely shattered when it comes to anti resource Trudeau.

You can pretend that increasing infrastructure spending (which you claimed there was none of in the budget, btw) does nothing. Economists will continue to disagree.

[Argus]

Spending money in the economy always increases it's size if that money wouldn't have been in the economy otherwise. The argument against it is that it has to be paid back, reducing potential economic output later, not during the spending.

Because we all know that your talking points have been absolutely shattered when it comes to anti resource Trudeau.

You can pretend that increasing infrastructure spending (which you claimed there was none of in the budget, btw) does nothing. Economists will continue to disagree.

I can't help notice you actually ignored the stuff you quoted from me, so why did you quote it?

[Smallc]

You're asserting that economics don't work the way that they actually do. There's no reason to respond to that.

[Argus]

You're asserting that economics don't work the way that they actually do. There's no reason to respond to that.

You're asserting you actually know anything about economics while showing no evidence of that.

[Derek 2.0]

You can pretend that increasing infrastructure spending (which you claimed there was none of in the budget, btw) does nothing. Economists will continue to disagree.

These economists tend to support Argus' point.......simply put:

[Smallc]

You're asserting you actually know anything about economics while showing no evidence of that.

How does spending more money in an economy not cause that economy to grow? Explain that to me, and you'll have some kind of point.

[Smallc]

These economists tend to support Argus' point.......simply put:

All that says is that economy is worse than expected (as budget 2016 surmised). It doesn't mean that the laws of economics have been broken. Were it not for the larger child benefit cheques and the extra infrastructure spending, that number would have been worse.

I know that, by the way, because Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper told me so, over and over again.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

All that says is that economy is worse than expected (as budget 2016 surmised). It doesn't mean that the laws of economics have been broken. Were it not for the larger child benefit cheques and the extra infrastructure spending, that number would have been worse.

I know that, by the way, because Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper told me so, over and over again.

And its expected to continue to get worse despite the additional spending by the Trudeau government......you are getting personal with Argus, suggesting he doesn't know how the economy works, despite his point being confirmed by numerous economists.....as cited.

You can continue to be snotty and point to "economic theories", but these numbers are compiled with Stats Can data and projections put together by actual economists.....and they support Argus' point......

Flaherty is dead and Harper is no longer the head of our Government........but nice distraction of the Trudeau governments handling of the economy and Government debt/spending....

[Smallc]

Saying that someone doesn't know how economics works isn't personal. When some displays economic ignorance, I'll call it out. That the economy is worse than expected does not mean that the extra government spending and lower net taxes made it worse (that would fly directly in the face of economic theory) - it means simply that economic conditions are worse than predicted. The current government, by the way, made predictions that allow for this level of economic malaise. The reality is, the last government used the same strategy in the same type of conditions. They were right then, and the Trudeau government is right now.

[?Impact]

While the economy is complex because of the wide number of variables, those who claim to understand it basically are latching onto a simple theory as if it were a scientific discovery. What they fail to understand is that the economy is an artificial construct, and the real variables are people with agendas. The real economy is our fragile planet with its limited resources.

[eyeball]

Can you show me cases where borrowing tens of billions to boost the economy was successful outside of wartime?

Wait a minute do you mean the War Of On Terror is over? Good. We can spend our peace dividend and reparations on boosting our economy.