Bank of Canada on standby to raise rates further, summary reveals hawkish tone to deliberations

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - i never actually said that at all. Not even a little.

 

Yes you did.  The “poison the well..” line in my last post is a direct copy-paste quote from your very first post in this thread that’s why I put it in quotations. 
 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Arms length literally means that they're distant and have parity with but the reality is they don't.  They do on paper, but everyone is quite aware that's not the case and never has been for many many decades.

Please provide some evidence to support this claim. 
 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If the bank was truly independent they would be screaming bloody blue murder about it right now. But - they are NOT entirely independent and so they mumble and murmur - "his spending isn't helping" they say, rather than "For Effs sake you're going to drive people into bankruptcy - stop spending!!!!"

No they wouldn’t because they are not political. This means that they don’t publicly “scream bloody murder” (also a quote of yours) to the public when they disagree with government policies. They surely share their views with government in private. Being non-political doesn’t mean being under tue control of politicians  

Let’s recap you said in the same breath that BOC is kot independent and rising interest rates seem like a plot by the Libs to sabotage PP. Now you’re trying to clarify your original comments to claim without evidence that the Libs are intentionally spending excessively to cause inflation then using that as an excuse to “pressure” BOC to raise interest rates accordingly (again zero evidence of any pressure or that the Libs even want interest rates to increase …for all we know they’re pressuring BOC to NOT increase rates). This is shaping up to be another right wing conspiracy 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Quote

Yes you did.  The “poison the well..” line in my last post is a direct copy-paste quote from your very first post in this thread that’s why I put it in quotations. 

 LOL _ i did no such thing and i see  you're now trying to change what we were talking about    I never said that justin could call the BoC and tell them to set the rate.  THAT is what you claimed i said.  I absolutely did not

Nice try - if you have to lie to make your point then you probably didn't have a very good point.

Quote

Please provide some evidence to support this claim. 

Why? You'll just lie and cliam i said something different anyway    Apparently.

Meh- i'll throw you a bone today.  Here's a recent article about it and it does touch on history where the gov't has turned on the bank and put a tonnne of pressure on them - even to the point of reducing their pension when they left the bank if they didn't tow the line.

And this is the tip of the iceberg. 

https://financialpost.com/news/economy/bank-of-canada-independence-under-pressure-political-comments

 

Quote

No they wouldn’t because they are not political. This means that they don’t publicly “scream bloody murder” (also a quote of yours) to the public when they disagree with government policies. They surely share their views with government in private. Being non-political doesn’t mean being under tue control of politicians  

That is one of your dumber comments.  IF they're independent then politics doesn't concern them - hitting interest rate goals do. So why woudln't they speak loudly about the factors that impact that? They do with other things.

 

Quote

Let’s recap

'Lets.

I said that while the BoC is technically independent that's not QUITE true as the gov't can exert a great deal of pressure.

That turned out to be true.

I've said that justin' spending is driving up inflation and interest rates necessary to fight it.

According to the BoC and scotia bank that is true.

I have said that justin appears to be bound and determined not to take actions to reduce these things and it leads me to wonder if he intends to deliberately leave a mess to make the CPC look bad as they have to clean  it up, This turned out to be true.

Additionally, you claimed i said justin could call the bank and set rates.  THat turned out to be a lie.

You turned out to be wrong across the board.

You may be an 1diot, but at least you're a COMPLETE 1diot i guess

[Moonbox]

On 11/9/2023 at 9:36 PM, CdnFox said:

ROFLMAO - i didn't predict ANYTHING - i said it sounds like they're going to go up based on what the guy who's incharge of raising them said    

They're the same thing, muppet.  ?

 

[sharkman]

On 11/8/2023 at 9:06 PM, CdnFox said:

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/11/08/bank-of-canada-interest-rate-hikes-discussions/

 

For those of you who are not done yet with interest rate hikes...

Sounds like they are going to go up again. This doesn't really impact me too much because my mortgage is so small, but for so many younger people just barely hanging on this is going to be devastating. I know that people think that the bank is independent of the government, but it's really not. And sometimes it feels like the government is trying to poison the well so that there are horrible financial problems when the next government takes over to keep them from looking too good.

Unstable interest rates affect developers and developments. We're already not building enough homes and now it's going to get worse yet again.

Sigh! Two more years.

The only reason there are not enough homes being built(think high rise condos) is the massive immigration program that the Justin has been spearheading.  He now wants to bring in hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.  After bringing in Syrians and Ukrainians.  

The inflation is completely self inflicted.

[Moonbox]

34 minutes ago, sharkman said:

The only reason there are not enough homes being built(think high rise condos) is the massive immigration program that the Justin has been spearheading.  

If that were true, then housing prices would have only gone up proportionally with migrant numbers.  Since that's not even remotely the case, then what you're saying isn't remotely true. 

Immigration is helping to drive up housing inflation, but it's certainly not the only reason there are not enough homes, lol. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

If that were true, then housing prices would have only gone up proportionally with migrant numbers. 

Well actually there really is a direct connection there but it's not really due to the immigrant numbers exactly. No matter how many you bring in,  if there is positive population growth our system will correct itself to produce slightly less homes than we need.

 

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Immigration is helping to drive up housing inflation, but it's certainly not the only reason there are not enough homes,

True. If the market were unfettered it would build enough homes for however many people needed them.  Population growth (rather than immigraiton precisely) is making things worse right at the moment but it doesn't cause the problem.

[sharkman]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well actually there really is a direct connection there but it's not really due to the immigrant numbers exactly. No matter how many you bring in,  if there is positive population growth our system will correct itself to produce slightly less homes than we need.

 

True. If the market were unfettered it would build enough homes for however many people needed them.  Population growth (rather than immigraiton precisely) is making things worse right at the moment but it doesn't cause the problem.

Population growth?  Can you be more specific?  “Population growth” could easily include growth by immigration.  Hopefully you’ll also talk about Canada’s birth rate.

[TreeBeard]

Tax breaks increase inflation.   This forces a rise in interest rates.   This hurts middle and low income earners.  What should be done are tax increases on excess profits and income tax increases on higher earners during high inflation and spending that on the deficit.  Creating more government programs will also add inflationary pressure.  

Remove taxes on food and other necessities and increase taxes on luxury goods.  This would place a larger tax burden on those who could afford luxury goods. 
 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, sharkman said:

Population growth?  Can you be more specific?  “Population growth” could easily include growth by immigration.  Hopefully you’ll also talk about Canada’s birth rate.

Well population growth is growth no matter how you get there. and the effect on housing wouldn't be radically different if it's one or the other. 

At the moment our population only grows because we have immigration, but if our natural birth rate lead to the same result in growth we'd have the same problems. So it's not that immigrants specifically are the issue.

There is ONE element that is different and that is the size of the increases on an annual basis ( you wouldn't see a sudden increase in babies from 300 - 500 k in a year in most cases) but that would be a temporary and manageable issue of the rest of the problems didn't exist.

So - while you COULD say that immigration appears to be causing the problem right now, it would be misleading. Population growth in excess of our ability to add homes and services to meet it are the problem.  And the reason that problem is happening is somewhat complex but at the moment as long as there is ANY positive population growth regardless of source and regardless of the amount we're going to experience that problem. 

But it is true that these sudden increases make it worse for a while.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Tax breaks increase inflation.   This forces a rise in interest rates.   This hurts middle and low income earners.  

Actually not true for the most part. All taxed' money is earned money, so it satisfied the requirements of a free market system which requires equivalent exchange of value for value.

I can't ever remember hearing of a time when a tax cut increased inflation.

Also many taxes are based on consumption, so they wind up being a 'penalty' on buying things.  GST for example. So that tax cut only matters if people are buying things anyway.

 

[sharkman]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well population growth is growth no matter how you get there. and the effect on housing wouldn't be radically different if it's one or the other. 

At the moment our population only grows because we have immigration, but if our natural birth rate lead to the same result in growth we'd have the same problems. So it's not that immigrants specifically are the issue.

There is ONE element that is different and that is the size of the increases on an annual basis ( you wouldn't see a sudden increase in babies from 300 - 500 k in a year in most cases) but that would be a temporary and manageable issue of the rest of the problems didn't exist.

So - while you COULD say that immigration appears to be causing the problem right now, it would be misleading. Population growth in excess of our ability to add homes and services to meet it are the problem.  And the reason that problem is happening is somewhat complex but at the moment as long as there is ANY positive population growth regardless of source and regardless of the amount we're going to experience that problem. 

But it is true that these sudden increases make it worse for a while.

 

You are convincing yourself out of common sense.  You had it in your early posts of this thread…

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, sharkman said:

You are convincing yourself out of common sense.  You had it in your early posts of this thread…

Did you have something you wanted to say or are you just one of those slower people who speaks in vague terms because they don't know how to articulate their thoughts?

[sharkman]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Did you have something you wanted to say or are you just one of those slower people who speaks in vague terms because they don't know how to articulate their thoughts?

I am reluctant to engage you in discussion because you seem to value disagreement over finding common ground.  In that case, I believe moonbat and the leftwing posters here will be more in your wheelhouse. 
 

Swing away.

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, sharkman said:

I am reluctant to engage you in discussion because you seem to value disagreement over finding common ground.  In that case, I believe moonbat and the leftwing posters here will be more in your wheelhouse. 
 

Swing away.

Then why reply at all.

I don't approve of stupidity or cheap debate tricks.  People that pull that get mocked or trashed.

Considering you can't even state something as simple as what your point is, you might be better off on a forum that doesn't hold intelligence in high regard. If you wish to reply to me go ahead, but try to use a modicum of intellect and no games. State your point, make your case, lets discuss it - if you can't do that you'll wind up looking like an !diot like moonbat and the others.  you got a very honest and non hostile reply form me right up till you started acting like a jackass with the whole "guess what i'm talking about " routine. And now you blame me for your bad behavior.

Edited November 14, 2023 by CdnFox

[sharkman]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Then why reply at all.

I don't approve of stupidity or cheap debate tricks.  People that pull that get mocked or trashed.

Considering you can't even state something as simple as what your point is, you might be better off on a forum that doesn't hold intelligence in high regard. If you wish to reply to me go ahead, but try to use a modicum of intellect and no games. State your point, make your case, lets discuss it - if you can't do that you'll wind up looking like an !diot like moonbat and the others.  you got a very honest and non hostile reply form me right up till you started acting like a jackass with the whole "guess what i'm talking about " routine. And now you blame me for your bad behavior.

Better call the waaaaambulance then, Mr. Cdnfx trot.  Because what I do or don’t do isn’t up to you.  I’ve seen your style of posting on this forum about a dozen times over the years, it’s just another schtick.  
 

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, sharkman said:

Better call the waaaaambulance then, Mr. Cdnfx trot.  Because what I do or don’t do isn’t up to you.  

 

Nobody said it was.  I see your English comprehension skills are as bad as your communication and thinking skills. Please tell your parents to do better next time they have a kid.

Quote

I’ve seen your style of posting on this forum about a dozen times over the years, it’s just another schtick.  

So what you're saying is you've run into a lot of other people who think you're a bit of an 1diot.  Well that has the ring of truth to it.
 

[Moonbox]

On 11/13/2023 at 4:55 PM, CdnFox said:

Actually not true for the most part. All taxed' money is earned money, so it satisfied the requirements of a free market system which requires equivalent exchange of value for value.

I'm not sure if you're just paraphrasing Das Kapital or what point you think you're making here, but it's pretty out of place for his topic.  

On 11/13/2023 at 4:55 PM, CdnFox said:

I can't ever remember hearing of a time when a tax cut increased inflation.

You're not exactly a scholar on this though, are you?  Whether or no you've heard about it is kind of irrelevant.  

On 11/13/2023 at 4:55 PM, CdnFox said:

Also many taxes are based on consumption, so they wind up being a 'penalty' on buying things.  GST for example. So that tax cut only matters if people are buying things anyway.

A GST cut would have both deflationary and inflationary impacts.  It would immediately lower prices, but i would also drive extra consumption.  If it weren't matched with government spending cuts, it would also grow the deficit, and over the long term it could drive disproportionate long-term inflation.  None of these topics are ever as simple as people make them out to be, and even I've simplified here.  

TLDR is tax cuts can absolutely drive up inflation, but depending on other market forces at play they may be good or bad policy.  Right now, our problem is spending.  Spending needs to go down, enormously.  

[CdnFox]

On 11/15/2023 at 9:06 AM, Moonbox said:

I'm not sure if you're just paraphrasing Das Kapital or what point you think you're making here, but it's pretty out of place for his topic.  

it isn't, you just don't understand the basics. We've established that long ago.

Tax breaks don't tend to stimulate inflation the same way gov't hand outs do. I'll keep it simple for you.

On 11/15/2023 at 9:06 AM, Moonbox said:

You're not exactly a scholar on this though, are you? 

Yup. But hey - even the most scholarly of schooled scholars can miss a detail -  show me an example where that did happen then.  Or - was I right all along?

Quote

A GST cut would have both deflationary and inflationary impacts.  It would immediately lower prices, but i would also drive extra consumption

Well - not exactly. I realize you're trying to simplify a more complex issue but first off the removal of the gst may or may not lead to a reduction in prices right away for most products, and while it would eventually increase purchasing on some items it would also increase businesses ability to actually produce those items and put downward pressure on wage increases.

So... while the cut may stimulate the economy, it doesn't necessarily stimulate inflation as it does tend to promote businesses to be more productive

BUT - the biggest difference is what you mention next:

Quote

" If it weren't matched with government spending cuts,

But it in essence is. And it tends to produce it's own replacement revenue.

If the gov't chooses to borrow more that's just the gov't overspending and that's outside of the tax issue. But what tends to happen is the economy gets stimulated and replaces that lost gov't income to a degree and gov'ts slow the rate of expansion of their growth as the economy grows and produces more revenues. So while there may be a little more pressure on gov't spending requiring slight reductions, generally it's not significant and it's certainly not a one to one ratio.

It's more complex but the upshot is that you tend to get increased expansion of the economy but NOT inflation, certainly no where near as bad. Consumption taxes TEND to be a drag on economies but not inflation.

The carbon tax on the other hand would be a little different.

And we've seen exactly all this happen with the gst in harper's day when he cut 2 percent from the gst.  Inflation never budged, but it helped keep spending higher and stimulate the economhy a couple years later when we went into the recession due to the bubble burst in the states.

 

TL/DR - Generally speaking cutting taxes does NOT drive up inflation the same way gov't spending does.

Whereas the covid money handed out definitely drove inflation way up.  And excessive gov't spending is currently part of our inflation/interest problem.

 

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

it isn't, you just don't understand the basics. We've established that long ago.

Tax breaks don't tend to stimulate inflation the same way gov't hand outs do. I'll keep it simple for you.

Everything you posted here was "simple".  Sadly, the volume of words you pound out on your keyboard doesn't substitute for actually knowing what you're talking about. 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well - not exactly. I realize you're trying to simplify a more complex issue but first off the removal of the gst may or may not lead to a reduction in prices right away for most products,

Removing GST has an immediate and clear effect on prices - period.  A $22.60 purchase, without 13% GST, would now be a $20 purchase.  It really is that simple.  

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

and while it would eventually increase purchasing on some items it would also increase businesses ability to actually produce those items and put downward pressure on wage increases.

It would immediately increase purchasing on various items, because it would immediately reduce their prices.  A sales tax is also fully 100% paid by the end-consumer, so it has little/nothing to do with a business' ability to actually produce what it's selling.  

Thanks for providing new and novel ways of demonstrating your compulsion for nattering confidently about things you don't understand.  ??

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Everything you posted here was "simple".   
 

Well you've got to write for your audience.  Sadly dr seuss isnt' around to help so it was the best i could do for you

 

 

Quote

Removing GST has an immediate and clear effect on prices - period.  A $22.60 purchase, without 13% GST, would now be a $20 purchase.  It really is that simple.  

Unless the price is raised to 22.60. Like seriously - did you need me to explain that?

Large sudden consumer tax drops tend to suffer from that  OR the price goes back up a week later, but there's no longer term benefit.  You have to be a little careful about that.

Quote

It would immediately increase purchasing on various items, because it would immediately reduce their prices.  A sales tax is also fully 100% paid by the end-consumer, so it has little/nothing to do with a business' ability to actually produce what it's selling.  

Well as we've noted it doesnt' always immediately reduce prices. You may not have lived in bc during the great Gst pst hst flip flop that happened But we got to see some of this first hand.  Real world, not just your imagination.

And yes it has a great deal to do with businesses ability to produce for several reasons.
 

Quote

Thanks for providing new and novel ways of demonstrating your compulsion for nattering confidently about things you don't understand.  ??

 

Talking to your mirror again i see  

Seriously - why are you this dumb? You KNOW if i say something i'm probably right, you ALWAYS wind up looking like a dolt, why not take at least a few seconds to research it and think about it? Even you with your limited understanding of economics should have figured this out mostly.

In any case, tax cuts do not tend to have the same impact on inflation as gov'ts handing out money does.  There's gst exmaples now, there's income tax cuts which stimulated the economy but not inflation, there's the gstpst to hst flip in bc, all of them show the same thing,

Sorry kiddo - yet another swing and a miss for you