31,000 jobs lost in Canada.

[Derek 2.0]

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.

Inversely there is no indication that the said spending helped improve it either........you've suggested the economy is helped by the Government "putting more money into it", but that is under the assumption that Government generates the wealth that equates to said monies....(All Government did was move money from piles A,B and C to piles X,Y and Z to "see what happens")

That isn't an argument against "stimulus spending" itself, but on what this Government is spending the ~$30 billion on........based on the cited numbers, this government is moving money from pile A to a pile that is then rapidly tossed into a fire, with an opposite desired effect......this government's solution? Keep tossing more money onto the fire.......

With all that being said, if one is to assume that your theory is true, if the government takes additional money out of the economy in the form of a carbon tax etc, money from both citizens and business, wouldn't this hinder the economy?

[Smallc]

Inversely there is no indication that the said spending helped improve it either........you've suggested the economy is helped by the Government "putting more money into it", but that is under the assumption that Government generates the wealth that equates to said monies....(All Government did was move money from piles A,B and C to piles X,Y and Z to "see what happens"

That would be true, except that it's not. First, money that is spent certain ways does better for the economy. The best ways in fact involve spending money on infrastructure and giving money to the poorest. Second, the money that we're talking about was borrowed. It wouldn't have existed at this moment in the economy if it weren't borrowed.

That isn't an argument against "stimulus spending" itself, but on what this Government is spending the ~$30 billion on........based on the cited numbers, this government is moving money from pile A to a pile that is then rapidly tossed into a fire, with an opposite desired effect......this government's solution? Keep tossing more money onto the fire.......

There's actually no evidence of that.

With all that being said, if one is to assume that your theory is true, if the government takes additional money out of the economy in the form of a carbon tax etc, money from both citizens and business, wouldn't this hinder the economy?

That depends on some very complicated factors. For example, if the money were taken from Corporate Canada, who tend to horde money, and spent on green infrastructure, it would be a net positive. At the moment though, the federal government has actually lowered taxes as a percentage of GDP since Trudeau took over.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

That would be true, except that it's not. First, money that is spent certain ways does better for the economy. The best ways in fact involve spending money on infrastructure and giving money to the poorest.

I said as much in the post above.......but thanks for trying to teach me what I already know,

Second, the money that we're talking about was borrowed. It wouldn't have existed at this moment in the economy if it weren't borrowed.

Huh? Did this borrowed money come out of a "magic hat"? Clearly it "existed" or there would have been no wealth to finance the lending to the GoC......

There's actually no evidence of that.

Except what I cited above based on this Government's data and forecasts put together by numerous economists.......

That depends on some very complicated factors. For example, if the money were taken from Corporate Canada, who tend to horde money, and spent on green infrastructure, it would be a net positive. At the moment though, the federal government has actually lowered taxes as a percentage of GDP since Trudeau took over.

Why would that be a "net positive"? If "Green infrastructure" was a "net positive" in economic terms, "corporate Canada" wouldn't be "hording their money", but investing in said areas.......

[Smallc]

Huh? Did this borrowed money come out of a "magic hat"? Clearly it "existed" or there would have been no wealth to finance the lending to the GoC......

Clearly you don't understand how debt works? I'd suggest you look up fractional banking.

Except what I cited above based on this Government's data and forecasts put together by numerous economists.......

No, that isn't what any of that says. It says that economic activity is worse than predicted, not that the government's money has been wasted in the economy.

Why would that be a "net positive"? If "Green infrastructure" was a "net positive" in economic terms, "corporate Canada" wouldn't be "hording their money", but investing in said areas.......

Governments exist for a reason, as does public infrastructure. Businesses act in the interest of their shareholders and customers. Governments exist for society in general.

[Derek 2.0]

Clearly you don't understand how debt works? I'd suggest you look up fractional banking.

No, clearly it is you that doesn't understand......when the Canadian bank's (Or any other First World nations) "magic hats" went dry during the sub-prime crisis who took on the debt in the form of bailouts?.......Taxpayers

No, that isn't what any of that says. It says that economic activity is worse than predicted, not that the government's money has been wasted in the economy.

Wasn't the Government's $30 billion in extra spending suppose to "improve the economy"? If the economy is getting worse, per the cited forecast, wouldn't that indicate the Trudeau governments use of tax dollars as wasted?

Governments exist for a reason, as does public infrastructure. Businesses act in the interest of their shareholders and customers. Governments exist for society in general.

Nice deflection

[Smallc]

No, clearly it is you that doesn't understand......when the Canadian bank's (Or any other First World nations) "magic hats" went dry during the sub-prime crisis who took on the debt in the form of bailouts?.......Taxpayers

Uhh, first, that didn't happen in Canada. Second, I'll take irrelevant for $200.

Wasn't the Government's $30 billion in extra spending suppose to "improve the economy"? If the economy is getting worse, per the cited forecast, wouldn't that indicate the Trudeau governments use of tax dollars as wasted?

No - it says that the economy is worse that expected, and in all likelihood would have been even worse without the measures from the government.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/09/22/stimulus-spending-canada-economy_n_12144330.html

I think I'll take TD Bank over Andrew Coyne.

[?Impact]

Wasn't the Government's $30 billion in extra spending suppose to "improve the economy"? If the economy is getting worse, per the cited forecast, wouldn't that indicate the Trudeau governments use of tax dollars as wasted?

What $30 billion? A projection for a year that is just half over? Are you suggesting that $30 billion was already spent? Do your investments turn around in hours, days, weeks, months, years, longer?

[Derek 2.0]

Uhh, first, that didn't happen in Canada. Second, I'll take irrelevant for $200.

First..uhh....it did.....Canadian Banks received charted loans from both the US Federal Reserve and BoC, likewise, CMHC bought over $60 billion of risky mortgages off of Canadian banks............and its very relevant, as in both cases, Canadian taxpayers footed the bill......hence no "magic hat" full of money......

No - it says that the economy is worse that expected, and in all likelihood would have been even worse without the measures from the government.

Where does your link support your claim that the economy would have been worse without Trudeau pissing away billions?

[Smallc]

First..uhh....it did.....Canadian Banks received charted loans from both the US Federal Reserve and BoC, likewise, CMHC bought over $60 billion of risky mortgages off of Canadian banks............and its very relevant, as in both cases, Canadian taxpayers footed the bill......hence no "magic hat" full of money......

Okay, first, Canadian taxpayers don't foot the bill for the US Federal Reserve. Second, the CHMC never bought risky loans and actually made a profit on their loans for cash swap with the banks. Canada did provide support in other ways, though, none of this has anything to do with the fact that debt introduces money to the economy that often wouldn't have otherwise been there. an only distracts from the actual topic (as I'm sure was your intention)

Where does your link support your claim that the economy would have been worse without Trudeau pissing away billions?

The link says that the spending programs of the Trudeau government will provide a boost of 0.3% of GDP next year, and 0.2% every year after that. In other words, the money takes time to act within the economy, and will have a limited impact (it isn't all that much money).

Edited October 2, 2016 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

Okay, first, Canadian taxpayers don't foot the bill for the US Federal Reserve.

I never said they did.

Second, the CHMC never bought risky loans and actually made a profit on their loans for cash swap with the bank.

Huh?

Canada did provide support in other ways, though, none of this has anything to do with the fact that debt introduces money to the economy that often wouldn't have otherwise been there.

That sounds like you're describing a Ponzi scheme.......and backwards at that.........borrowed monies from the "magic hat" introduce a debt that has to be paid back with interest.......this in turn creates both debt and the expansion in our economy of credit.....and that increases the cost of everything within our economy.....but when credit and debt stop expanding the whole house of cards comes crashing down.....enter "Government stimulus" and the rebuilding and expansion of said house of cards....

The link says that the spending programs of the Trudeau government will provide a boost of 0.3% of GDP next year, and 0.2% every year after that. In other words, the money takes time to act within the economy, and will have a limited impact (it isn't all that much money).

That's not what I asked.......where in your link does it suggest the economy would be worse off without Trudeau pissing away billions of borrowed money?

[Smallc]

Huh?

You said risky loans. That was never part of the package.

That sounds like you're describing a Ponzi scheme.......and backwards at that.........borrowed monies from the "magic hat" introduce a debt that has to be paid back with interest.......this in turn creates both debt and the expansion in our economy of credit.....and that increases the cost of everything within our economy.....but when credit and debt stop expanding the whole house of cards comes crashing down.....enter "Government stimulus" and the rebuilding and expansion of said house of cards....

You're right about one thing at least - the money (theoretically) does have to be paid back. The idea is to smooth the curves in the graph.

That's not what I asked.......where in your link does it suggest the economy would be worse off without Trudeau pissing away billions of borrowed money?

So you think the economy would be better if it were in fact 0.3% smaller? I can't help you.

[Argus]

That would be true, except that it's not. First, money that is spent certain ways does better for the economy. The best ways in fact involve spending money on infrastructure and giving money to the poorest. Second, the money that we're talking about was borrowed. It wouldn't have existed at this moment in the economy if it weren't borrowed.

That is the theory. However, that is not what you are doing. The Liberals are giving very little to the poor and almost nothing to infrastructure spending. Most of its money is being spent on the middle class to buy votes, on foreigners to buy votes for their desperate campaign to get a security council seat, on the black hole which are native reserves, and to our national welfare system which is called Employment Insurance, for some reason.

And this is not 'new' money unless they printed it up themselves. It was mostly borrowed from bankers.

That depends on some very complicated factors. For example, if the money were taken from Corporate Canada, who tend to horde money, and spent on green infrastructure, it would be a net positive.

Yeah, the old left wing certainty that government knows how to spend money way better than the private sector. Proven wrong again and again but evidence never influences the ideology of liberals. You probably have a poster of Kathleen Wynn on your wall.

[Derek 2.0]

You said risky loans. That was never part of the package.

I trust you've never taken out a mortgage on a house? Mortgages with less than a 20% down payment require insurance because they're deemed risky.........Canadian taxpayers, through the CMHC, took on the risk of all such mortgages in Canada (~10-15%), including mortgages deemed "sub-prime" in nature....i.e 0% down, or the 5% down payment obtained through a credit card or line of credit, or a cash back scheme through a borrower.

You're right about one thing at least - the money (theoretically) does have to be paid back. The idea is to smooth the curves in the graph.

My entire statement is correct....there is nothing "theoretical" about the debt created by borrowing, and the ensuing follow on effects on the inflated economy.

So you think the economy would be better if it were in fact 0.3% smaller? I can't help you.

That's a good start.......the economy should be allowed to deflate to a point that it naturally stops, absent Government stimulus and changing of interest rates..........a far better prospect then further inflating the credit/debt bubble, building to the eventual bursting of our economic bubble.......

[?Impact]

he economy should be allowed to deflate to a point that it naturally stops,

the old collateral damage is unimportant theory. We saw what collateral damage led to in the middle east.

[Smallc]

That is the theory. However, that is not what you are doing. The Liberals are giving very little to the poor

Except of course for the child benefit and EI changes, which put money right into the hands of people who have the least.

and almost nothing to infrastructure spending.

Your own link said that infrastructure spending had the largest increase.

And this is not 'new' money unless they printed it up themselves. It was mostly borrowed from bankers.

And fractional banking means that it's new money.

Yeah, the old left wing certainty that government knows how to spend money way better than the private sector.

Who said that?

[Smallc]

I trust you've never taken out a mortgage on a house? Mortgages with less than a 20% down payment require insurance because they're deemed risky.........Canadian taxpayers, through the CMHC, took on the risk of all such mortgages in Canada (~10-15%), including mortgages deemed "sub-prime" in nature....i.e 0% down, or the 5% down payment obtained through a credit card or line of credit, or a cash back scheme through a borrower.

I'm sorry, but your own link says that there was almost 0 risk in the transaction. After all, the CMHC was already on the hook.