Top economists link Trudeau's immigration policies to rising inflation and weak productivity

[I am Groot]

 

Not altogether a surprise now that more and more people feel free to speak out on immigration without fear of being canceled. 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to dramatically increase immigration — and allow a flood of temporary workers and international students — without providing proper support has created a laundry list of economic problems, including higher inflation and weak productivity, chief economists at Canada’s biggest banks said Thursday during a wide-ranging panel discussion in Toronto.

How do you rebut these people by simply screaming racism, xenophobia, and anti-immigrant? You can't. 

And the worst is we know they knew this was going to happen. They knew two years ago that it was going to cause huge housing issues and they pushed ahead with ever increasing immigration anyway. They were warned as far back as 2017 in another immigration department report that even the much lower but sustained numbers in 2017 were already causing economic problems for immigrants, housing issues, and expanding ethnic enclaves while reducing integration. And they ignored that too. Immigration was only 300k then, but they kept jacking it up as fast as they could.

Trudeau botched immigration surge, Canada’s top bank economists say | National Post

[Moonbox]

The only thing I can think of is that this is some cynical ploy to stack the elections for the Liberals, with their assuming that immigrants are less likely to vote Conservative.  There was never a good economic argument for upping the limit and plenty of evidence why it could be bad (especially with housing shortages and inflation spiking), and still with opinions souring more and more, Trudeau just plows ahead. 

This is an election-losing issue all by itself, and I think it's only going to get worse for the Liberals here.  The policy has no future, Canadians obviously don't want it, so why else keep it?   

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

The only thing I can think of is that this is some cynical ploy to stack the elections for the Liberals, with their assuming that immigrants are less likely to vote Conservative.  There was never a good economic argument for upping the limit and plenty of evidence why it could be bad (especially with housing shortages and inflation spiking), and still with opinions souring more and more, Trudeau just plows ahead. 

This is an election-losing issue all by itself, and I think it's only going to get worse for the Liberals here.  The policy has no future, Canadians obviously don't want it, so why else keep it?   

Up to like last week you were still claiming none of this was true and it was all foreign factors despite bank reports which proved otherwise   10,000 posts trying desperately to twist the english language to suggest it was all some other external source!  Glad you've seen the light in that respect anyway

Of course his immigration and spending policies have driven inflation/interest up and reduced our productivity and gdp per capita.

As to the rest - i have to admit i don't really know his motivation.  Stacking elections just doesn't make sense at all really - the research and the numbers simply don't support that as being worth the effort. The vast majority of these people wont' even be citizens or able to vote in the next election or even likely in the one after that - and the research shows that where they settle has more of an  impact than who let them in. 

But i don't have anything other than 'winning virtue points for after he leaves' to offer.

I think he's worried about a gdp collapse if he doesn't keep bringing people in. But he's got to realize people now associate that immigration with all their other financial woes.

[Moonbox]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Up to like last week you were still claiming none of this was true and it was all foreign factors despite bank reports which proved otherwise   10,000 posts trying desperately to twist the english language to suggest it was all some other external source!  Glad you've seen the light in that respect anyway

Nope.  🙄 

Groot posted an article explaining that top economists point to Trudeau's immigration policy as making things less affordable.  Those same economists also explained last year that most of 2022's high inflation was based on global factors, despite your brain-dead claims about more than half of it being Trudeau's fault.  They have not revised their opinions on this, nor have I.  Your clueless hot-takes are just as clueless now as they were many months ago.     

 

Edited January 12 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Nope.  🙄

Yep - but i get why you're ashamed about it now. 

Quote

Groot posted an article explaining that top economists point to Trudeau's immigration policy as making things less affordable.  Those same economists also explained last year that most of 2022's high inflation was based on global factors,

No, they didn't as i pointed out at the time.

They were quite clear - initially half of the inflation/interest was based on external forces, the other half was internal and about 33 percent was things other coutnries were having to deal with as well.  And further they released a report saying if justin would cut spending by 3 percent there'd be no need to raise interest rates.  I FURTHER pointed out that subsequent to those reports his immigration policies had taken over as the major contributer.

But noooooo you insisted no such thing is true!!!! 

But it is. I was correct and you were wrong.

Here - i don't normally approve of memes in threads but..... you've earned this :

 

14 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Nope.  🙄 

Groot posted an article explaining that top economists point to Trudeau's immigration policy as making things less affordable.  Those same economists also explained last year that most of 2022's high inflation was based on global factors, despite your brain-dead claims about more than half of it being Trudeau's fault.  They have not revised their opinions on this, nor have I.  Your clueless hot-takes are just as clueless now as they were many months ago.     

 

Oh - look, you went back and edited it after i posted, how typical.

Guess you figured you were't lying hard enough    Have this as well 

Edited January 12 by CdnFox

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The only thing I can think of is that this is some cynical ploy to stack the elections for the Liberals, with their assuming that immigrants are less likely to vote Conservative.

Something about this doesn't add up.  How long does it take for temporary workers, foreign students and refugees to become Canadian and eligible to vote?  3 - 5 years? Is it safe to assume the immigration system is as overloaded and understaffed as any other department at the moment?  My point being how do they push so many people through in time to make a difference in an election? By the time 2023's immigrants are processed what use will they be to the Liberals?

I suppose they could be playing some long game here but then they'd need a deep state to keep this ball rolling in the between times when they're not in power.  If only there was a recording of Liberals and immigration staff in the PMO discussing this is in the context and terms one might expect if no one was listening in.

To bad we don't have some really clever guerrilla journalists who can penetrate these lofty places of power to conduct the sort of ethical public espionage that might either expose allegations like these or just as importantly rule them out.

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Something about this doesn't add up.  How long does it take for temporary workers, foreign students and refugees to become Canadian and eligible to vote?  3 - 5 years? Is it safe to assume the immigration system is as overloaded and understaffed as any other department at the moment?

It's even worse than you think - not only is it 5 years before they COULD be citizens - it takes something like 10 or 15 years to even get to the 80 percent mark.
THEN the research shows that THOSE people are generally the least likely to vote.  So you get a lower than average turn out - worse that trend is worse when the country they come from doesn't really promote voting there.  And THEN it turns out that the location they live in will be more of a determinig factor.

So after 10 years, if you bring in 100 thousand people you may get 80 thousand citizens for about 40 thousand who actually vote and not all will vote for you, so you might get 15 thousand NET votes after other parties get theirs if you're VERY lucky and those are going to be in areas that ALREADY tend to vote for you.

So it's seriously questionable how it's worth it.

 

[Moonbox]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yep - but i get why you're ashamed about it now. 

Only in your little imagination.  This was one of the dumbest and easiest-to-disprove of your clueless hot-takes, so if you're compelled to keep bringing it up and derailing threads, I can keep requoting the same thing while you huff and puff and look the fool.  

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They were quite clear - initially half of the inflation/interest was based on external forces, the other half was internal and about 33 percent was things other coutnries were having to deal with as well. 

While you cluelessly ranted about Trudeau being responsible for over half of Canada's inflation in 2022, here's what the economists actually said:

a.      Around 50% of the increase in inflation observed since the end of 2019 can be ascribed to global or foreign factors. These include US inflation, commodity prices and movements in the exchange rate.

b.     Supply challenges that largely reflect developments at the global level account for another 35% of the rise in inflation.

https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.inflation-reports.causes-of-inflation--december-5--2022.html

 

[Moonbox]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

I suppose they could be playing some long game here but then they'd need a deep state to keep this ball rolling in the between times when they're not in power.  If only there was a recording of Liberals and immigration staff in the PMO discussing this is in the context and terms one might expect if no one was listening in.

I really don't know, but we could just chalk this up to Trudeau being as unintelligent as he looks and acts.  Maybe he thought he could win the next election.  Maybe he thought he could paint anyone who opposed excess immigration as racist. Maybe he only listens to people who tell him what he wants to hear.  Maybe he already knows he's doomed in the next election, and just wants to sow the seeds for a future return, or at least a Liberal revival down the road.  It doesn't really matter in the end. 

When the touted purpose of doubling immigration is for long-term economic health, but the actual economists say it's going to do the opposite, we can only shake our heads and surmise.  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Only in your little imagination.  This was one of the dumbest and easiest-to-disprove of your clueless hot-takes, so if you're compelled to keep bringing it up and derailing threads, I can keep requoting the same thing while you huff and puff and look the fool. 

LOL - you realize every time you do this people laugh at you   IT's there in black and white

Quote

While you cluelessly ranted about Trudeau being responsible for over half of Canada's inflation in 2022, here's what the economists actually said:

Nope - i said initially he was responsible for about half and now it's more.  But i understand why you have to lie about it to try to feel better

Quote

a.      Around 50% of the increase in inflation observed since the end of 2019 can be ascribed to global or foreign factors. 

50 percent can be attributed to global factors.  50 pecent. That's it. Which means 50 percent is attributable to non global factors.  As the report clearly indicates.

Now you want to pretend that internal issues are some how global factors.  They are not and the report is quite clear.

In addition i posted the report FROM THE SAME BANK published a few months earlier NOTING THAT IF TRUDEAU HAD CUT SPENDING BY 3 PERCENT inflation would be back under control with no interest rate rises. THat's becuase the supply chain isnt' strained if people don't have as much free money to spend on supplies.

Apparently you can't work out that 100 percent minus 50 percent is 50 percent  

And then i pointed out that  since the middle of 2022 which is where the report's data is from even MORE was on trudeau - which THIS REPORT CONFIRMS.

 

LOL - God you will go to the ends of the earth and lie your ass off  to defend justin trudeau   Then you'll pretend you aren't a supporter

The spending Trudeau did accounted for about half of the inflation we initially saw - and his spending and immigration would soon account for most of it as time went on.

Trying to twist the english language doesnt' change that   and every time you do people see you for what you are.

[Michael Hardner]

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

1. Something about this doesn't add up.  How long does it take for temporary workers, foreign students and refugees to become Canadian and eligible to vote?  3 - 5 years? Is it safe to assume the immigration system is as overloaded and understaffed as any other department at the moment?  My point being how do they push so many people through in time to make a difference in an election? By the time 2023's immigrants are processed what use will they be to the Liberals?

2. I suppose they could be playing some long game here but then they'd need a deep state to keep this ball rolling in the between times when they're not in power.  If only there was a recording of Liberals and immigration staff in the PMO discussing this is in the context and terms one might expect if no one was listening in.

3. To bad we don't have some really clever guerrilla journalists who can penetrate these lofty places of power to conduct the sort of ethical public espionage that might either expose allegations like these or just as importantly rule them out.

1. Well exactly.
2. Pretty long, since we've been one of the highest immigration rate countries for decades and we still have about the same ratio of conservative/liberal governments as ever.  Immigrants aren't dolts.  They are sometimes liberal, sometimes conservative.
3. Journalism is dead but here's the word: banks, big business in general and big services depend on the numbers going up and they have the most pull.

[Aristides]

I live in a riding that has one of the largest Indo Canadian communities in Canada. It regularly votes overwhelmingly Conservative in federal elections.

[Moonbox]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

50 percent can be attributed to global factors.  50 pecent. That's it. Which means 50 percent is attributable to non global factors.  As the report clearly indicates.

Which made your original claim that Trudeau was responsible for over half of inflation obviously clueless all by itself. 😆 

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Now you want to pretend that internal issues are some how global factors.  They are not and the report is quite clear.

I'm not pretending anything.  I'm quoting the report:

"Supply challenges that largely reflect developments at the global level account for another 35% of the rise in inflation."

That doesn't say "caused by Trudeau", does it?  It doesn't even say "internal issues".  That you're even attempting these donkey-brained mental backflips is absurd when it specifically says "largely reflect developments at the global level".  

You're derailing a thread by digging up and trying to rehash an argument you already embarrassed yourself from months ago.  That's how belligerently stupid you are.  🤣

 

 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Which made your original claim that Trudeau was responsible for over half of inflation obviously clueless all by itself. 😆 
 

LOL - except that didn't happen   I said that NOW it's over half and look - all the banks agree with me.  I said in the beginning that half was under his control and half was external.

I was actually the one who posted that report you love to misquote   

Quote

I'm not pretending anything.  I'm quoting the report:

Nope - the report says half of the issues were global.  Half were not.

 

Quote

"Supply challenges that largely reflect developments at the global level account for another 35% of the rise in inflation."

Sure - largely reflect. NOt "are caused by"

So they were internal but reflect global developments.

Like supply challenges - but it's still trueau's policy that decides if it has an impact or not.

For example - if you are having trouble with supply for your people, THEN BRING IN A HALF MILLION MORE PEOPLE - that's a problem.

If you give people tonnes of money to go buy things, that's a problem.

And the reports said exactly that - spending was the root cause of why the inflation/interest rate had to remain high.  A reduction of 3 percent and it goes away

BUT WAIT - THERE"S MORE !!!

Remember when i said at the time that his immigration policy was a big part of it? And you said "OHHHH NOooooooooo Couldn't be"...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ircc-immigration-housing-canada-1.7080376?cmp=rss

Immigration is making Canada's housing more expensive. The government was warned 2 years ago

So gee - looks like i was right again. Housing has been the biggest inflationary pressure.  And trudeau new his policies were driving that up.

So once again - proving i was right. 

Quote

That doesn't say "caused by Trudeau", does it? 

But the rest of the reports did.

As i pointed out numerous times.  They were quite clear - his spending policies at that time were what was causing the inflation and forcing the bank to act on it's own to drive up interest rates.

And tiff himself alluded to it recently when he said trudeau's spending 'certianly wasn't helping'.   And now several banks have pointed out his immigration and spending is the problem we face today.

INCLUDING THE OP ARTICLE!!

ROFLMAO -   I was 100 percent correct you were 100 percent wrong.

You know - if you spent more energy actually learning what  you were talkig about and less energy desperately defending your buddy justin when he's so indefensible you'd look less stupid   

[Moonbox]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOL - except that didn't happen   I said that NOW it's over half and look - all the banks agree with me.

Only in your imagination.  You cannot and have not ever provided a single reference saying that.  🤣

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I was actually the one who posted that report you love to misquote   

No you weren't.  I quoted that originally, because I already had it from work.  I also haven't been misquoting it, because I'm literally directly quoting it.  All the furious effort you spend pounding out these useless rants is wasted when you say so many stupid things in the first two lines.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Only in your imagination.  Y

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true moonbeam

My imagination - several bank reports, economists statements, the BOC....   boy my imagination sure gets around

Quote

No you weren't.  I quoted that originally

Yea, i was.  And i dug it up specifically because you were claiming that all inflation was from exterior sources, whereas i claimed that trudeau was responsible for at least half and increasingly more (which turned out to be true). 

The very first person who mentioned the TWO scotia reports was me.  Not you.

And you were so desperate you chose to take that one line out of context and ignore the fact it specifically states only 50 percent of the inflation over target was a result of external forces, and the rest was not.

You did not bring it up kiddo

You COMPLETELY chose to ignore the second report which actually came out BEFORE the one you quote which very clearly says that the reason we have such inflation and interest rate hikes is because of trudeau's spending, and if he spent less the BOC wouldn't need to be trying to fight inflation on it's own while the libs drove it up.

And now - we see that the libs were WARNED that their practices were driving inflation up and going to make it worse, forcing the bank to take action on interest rates. 

So not only was i right, Justin knew what i said was right from his own people

 

But i LOVE that you're now lying and pretending you brought the report up   Sorry kid - both were me and you still suck  

[Moonbox]

On 1/13/2024 at 12:57 PM, CdnFox said:

My imagination - several bank reports, economists statements, the BOC....   boy my imagination sure gets around

None of which you can or will reference saying what you pretend they do.  The BOC and bank reports may say a lot of things, but they don't line up with CdnFox's low-IQ hot-takes and interpretations.   🤡

On 1/13/2024 at 12:57 PM, CdnFox said:

Yea, i was.  And i dug it up specifically because you were claiming that all inflation was from exterior sources,

No muppet, you did not.  Here is how that conversation actually went:

I posted it, because you specifically claimed that Scotiabank backed up your retarded claims, when I'd already read what they had to say for work and knew they said the opposite.  You did your usual jackassing about why you wouldn't provide your sources, so I spent 30 seconds to put you out of your misery.  🥱

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

None of which you can or will reference saying what you pretend they do.  The BOC and bank reports may say a lot of things, but they don't line up with CdnFox's low-IQ hot-takes and interpretations.   🤡

Sorry muffin - that's exactly what they say   the fact you can't read english and think that 100 percent minus 50 percent is somehow less than 50 percent is not my problem

 

Quote

 

No muppet, you did not.  Here is how that conversation actually went:

I posted it, because you specifically claimed that Scotiabank backed up your retarded claims, r misery.  🥱 

 

Ummm - So,,, you posted it because i referenced it.  Because i'd posted it. Says so right there -  you claim what the scotiabank report says is actually.... well that means i'd clearly quoted from it already. 

  ROFLMAO - holy shit sherlock you REALLY suck at this!

"You talked about the report so that means i talked about it first because i was responding to you!"  LOL what an !diot.    I posted a bunch of sources in fact, but that was the only one that AFTER YOU READ IT you tried to twist, claiming that 50 percent doesn't mean 50 percent  

I also posted the second report which you studiously ignored despite having your face rubbed in it again and Again

You didn't know shit about it - you hadn't read ANY Of those reports INCLUDING the scotiabank ones, you're such a liar. 

 

And now several OTHER sources are all coming forward saying not only was I right but trudeau had been told sorry - your hero let you down again  i  guess   and after all that work defending him !

 

LOL - man, what a pathetic little person you are -  trying to stick up for justin when every other source in the universe says you're wrong must be a tough gig  

And if you'd read the report at work and it said what you claimed it said - why did you spend so much time refusing to post any facts or information and claimed none existed?

Sorry muffin - as usual turns out i was right. The scotia bank reports  THAT I brought up

I do have to say tho - watching you twist and turn as you do when you're trying to dodge the facts had me literally laughing out loud today - thanks for that!

Edited January 15 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

None of which you can or will reference saying what you pretend they do.  The BOC and bank reports may say a lot of things, but they don't line up with CdnFox's low-IQ hot-takes and interpretations.   🤡

No muppet, you did not.  Here is how that conversation actually went:

I posted it, because you specifically claimed that Scotiabank backed up your retarded claims, when I'd already read what they had to say for work and knew they said the opposite.  You did your usual jackassing about why you wouldn't provide your sources, so I spent 30 seconds to put you out of your misery.  🥱

LOL - now that you wound up looking stupid there again,  why not finish it off with complaining that my posts are too long and it gives you headaches ?  Or that i post too much so it's all my fault   Or maybe you could argue with yourself about how i argue with myself ROLFMAO!!!!  Please - whichever hissy fit you prefer, it's always great to watch  

[Moonbox]

I'm okay just letting your spastic responses here speak for themselves. 🙃

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

I'm okay just letting your spastic responses here speak for themselves. 🙃

 

LOL - sure kid  

In any event - as was noted back then while you were desperately failing to try to say otherwise, justin was responsible for about half the inflation we initially saw and now it's gotten even worse due to his immigration, spending, energy and fiscal policy. This is what gives us a high inflation/interest rate one two. 

The thing we didn't talk about then was the damage he's done to quality of life.  With a much much lower gdp per capita than other countries our kids will have a lower quality of life on top of struggling to have a home and afford to eat.  Less gov't services and less wealth.

Man - you progressives sure do love to go backwards

(that wasn't too long for you was it?)

[Moonbox]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

In any event - as was noted back then while you were desperately failing to try to say otherwise, justin was responsible for about half the inflation we initially saw

a.      Around 50% of the increase in inflation observed since the end of 2019 can be ascribed to global or foreign factors. These include US inflation, commodity prices and movements in the exchange rate.

b.     Supply challenges that largely reflect developments at the global level account for another 35% of the rise in inflation.

https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.inflation-reports.causes-of-inflation--december-5--2022.html

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

a.      Around 50% of the increase in inflation observed since the end of 2019 can be ascribed to global or foreign factors. 

Yawn - still desperatly trying to defend trudeau.

Yes.  50 percent is due to foreign factors.  Only 50 percent.  That's half.  Which is what i'd claimed. The other half is internally controlled. Not foreign. Only 50 percent is foreign.

Everything after that is NOT external.  Trudeau made the supply chain issues vastly worse in several ways, number one being his immigration policies and also his spending.  So still on him.

That's where the other 50 percent comes from. Scotia bank ALSO reported that if trudeau had cut spending by even 3 percent there would have been no need for interest rate hikes to curb inflation.  But you like to ignore that because it proves 100 percent you're wrong.

 

And now - surprise surprise- we see economists and banks all over agreeing with me. Including the original article here. And they warned trudeau that his policies would create inflation. So they knew it then, they know it now - you're wrong.

50 percent of the increase in inflation/interest between 2020 and mid 2022 was trudeau's responsiblity.  Not global factors. Trudeau created the supply chain issues that make up 35 percent of the rest of it with immigration and excessive spending.

And NOW - almost all of it is trudeau.  Our higher interest rates and persistent high inflation (3.4 last month which is still terrible) is pretty much 100 percent due to trudeau in the form of tax, immigration and spending.

 

Sorry kid - you can't defend trudeau on this one. The inflation we faced was at least half his fault in the beginning and is pretty much all his fault right now.    

Feel free to have your hissy fit  

 

 

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yes.  50 percent is due to foreign factors.  Only 50 percent.  That's half.  Which is what i'd claimed. The other half is internally controlled. Not foreign. Only 50 percent is foreign.

Everyone claims that, but only you deny this.

b.     Supply challenges that largely reflect developments at the global level account for another 35% of the rise in inflation.

Do you know what 50 + 35 equals?

[CdnFox]

Just now, eyeball said:

Everyone claims that, but only you deny this.

b.     Supply challenges that largely reflect developments at the global level account for another 35% of the rise in inflation.

Do you know what 50 + 35 equals?

Equals you're a lying sack of crap? LOL

Supply challenges were caused by trudeau for the most part.  IF you have 2 apples and 1 person who wants to buy an apple, you don't have inflation. If you immigrate 2 more people then you've got 3 people who want an apple and 2 apples. Guess what.

Further, if you give people money they want to spend it. If there's not enough things available to spend it on guess what

So if there's a world shortage of apples and you have enough for yourself but then you bring in more people.....

ohter factors are things like the price of oil. Foreign wars drive that kind of thing up. But our ability to produce it was severely reduced by trudeau. Again - his policy impacts inflation when there's pressure on energy.

They REFLECT developments - they're not CAUSED BY developments. So how much did global or foreign factors influence inflaton? lets see....

Around 50% of the increase in inflation observed since the end of 2019 can be ascribed to global or foreign factors. 

50 percent were actually global or foreign factors

THAT MEANS 50% CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TAO GLOBAL OR FOREIGN FACTORS

So do you know what 50 percent plus ZERO is? that's the percent that justin was responsible for.

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Everyone claims that, but only you deny this.

b.     Supply challenges that largely reflect developments at the global level account for another 35% of the rise in inflation.

Do you know what 50 + 35 equals?

Oh - and it's worth noting that not only am i right, and not only do the banks and economists agree at this point,  BUT - as per the OP we now KNOW that trudeau KNEW his policies would be driving up inflation.

So there you go. Can't even claim it was an accident.

But it's lovely to see you joining moonbeam in desperately trying to defend trudeau as usual