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

[eyeball]

Meanwhile, it turns out not limiting the growth of our population was the problem after all - a problem that was identified decades if not centuries ago.

Population is growing faster than the economy can handle, says National Bank of Canada
 

Now that said, the BOC has yet to address whether our ecosystems can handle this growth in population.  Questions about that aspect of sustainability have been going largely unanswered for decades as well.

[CdnFox]

Just now, eyeball said:

Meanwhile, it turns out not limiting the growth of our population was the problem after all - a problem that was identified decades if not centuries ago.

Well not 'meanwhile' - that's what the op argument was and what we've been talking about.  Not limiting growth to a sustainable level is indeed a major huge part of our inflationary problems, productivity problems and some of our social ones as well although that hasnt' been discussed.

But no, the problem was not identified 'decades' ago and only an 1diot would suggest that the second largest country in the world was identifying 'too much immigration' as it's problem when it was first born 150 years ago - so centuries is pretty rediculous

In the end the problem really isn't immigration per se - it's growing our population at a rate faster than we can provide infrastructure and support for.  In the past we only brought in immigrants at a rate where we could absorb them into society, provide homes and education and skills, etc etc. So there wasn't a major issue

And - with the reforms brought in in 2006 we vastly improved on that, and after that immigrants really were a net benefit at the level we were bringing them in.

But we've gone from about 250 thousand people in 2015 to close to a miillion today -  we cannot even come close to absorbing that.  IF we could there woudlnt' be a problem.

Population is growing faster than the economy can handle, says National Bank of Canada
 

Quote

Now that said, the BOC has yet to address whether our ecosystems can handle this growth in population.  Questions about that aspect of sustainability have been going largely unanswered for decades as well.

Yeah you're just making shit up at this point    Every single issue you run into has been a major discussion point that you've brought up for centuries now!!  "SOLAR POWER -  I WAS ARGUING ABOUT THAT IN 1886 !!!!"  LOL~

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So there you go.

So you can't add. Good to know.

And don't worry about me and Moonbox, I suspect he'll have a thing or two to say about population growth, sustainability and fuller cost accounting that view economies and ecosystems together. Something else I suspect you couldn't put together if your life depended on it. But hey neither can the BOC so...

[impartialobserver]

while logical in its premise.. economists use statistical models based on probability. Rare do we have full population data

[eyeball]

There's an awful lot economists don't account for. They've actually been taught to believe the environment is something that exists outside the economy.

 

[Moonbox]

1 hour 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?

He does, but he's too belligerently stupid to back down.  

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Supply challenges were caused by trudeau for the most part.

Supply challenges like Russia's invasion of Ukraine, China's zero-COVID lockdowns and the 2 year backup at the Port of Lost Angeles:

Trudeau's fault.  That makes so much sense.  🤣

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

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.

It's both pathetic and hilarious that you think this is a compelling reasoning. 

Everything CdnFox thinks he knows about economics, summed up in two sentences profoundly stupid sentences.  

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

So you can't add. Good to know.

 

I can subtract - 100 - 50 is 50.    Sorry that's over your head  

I know - math is hard for lefties  

 

[CdnFox]

47 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

He does, but he's too belligerently stupid to back down.  

Supply challenges like Russia's invasion of Ukraine, China's zero-COVID lockdowns and the 2 year backup at the Port of Lost Angeles:

Nope.  Those are external and global factors. only 50 percent was due to external or global factors. 

This is what you can't understand - ANY global factor you mention is included in their 50 percent

Supply chain that ISN'T a global factor is things like the lack of housing. Housing shot up like a rocket during that time after a brief lull at the beginning of covid.  That is a supply chain issue.  Not enough homes being built.

Also trucking issues. It cost more to ship things at that time. You may have heard about some of that at the end.

Also internal labour issues. When people are forced to go home they don't produce things any more. This had serious impacts on food.

Etc etc.

Now - you can argue some of that was necessary but you can't argue it didn't involve trudeau.

Sooowwwwweeeeee - swing and a miss again little guy  

[eyeball]

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

ANY global factor you mention is included in their 50 percent

Then why do they also say.... 

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

....followed almost immediately with...

Purely domestic factors account for a small, but important, share of inflation.

...all I'm curious about here really is why you insist on trying to cite and ignore the same article to make your case?

 

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

He does, but he's too belligerently stupid to back down. 

Strong like bull, smart like dump truck.

Edited January 16 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Then why do they also say.... 

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

Because 'reflecting developments" isn't "caused by".   If they were 'Caused' by they'd be part of the 50 percent.

But - for example the covid cerb payments affected inflation a lot, especially the longer they went on.  THat reflects a global issue - covid. But it wasn't CAUSED by anyone anywhere else - canada decided to spend that money along with all the corporate bail out money and decided to keep it going for as long as they did.

"reflect'.  Not caused by.  Everyone had to deal with covid - but how we chose to deal with it was an internal matter, not external.  External issues only accounted for 50 percent.

That's why the SAME bank and the SAME authors at the SAME time said that if trudeau cut spending by 3 percent the bank wouldn't have to raise interest rates to fight inflation, and that trudeau was forcing the bank to fight inflation by  itself while he made things worse.  I've posted and quoted that extensively as well but you trudeau defenders don't like to mention that one  

Sorry eyeball.  I know you love to defend trudeau, but he was responsible for about half the inflation/interest we experienced right off the bat, and at this point he's pretty much 100 percent the reason the bank can't get us down to target.  3.4 percent again this last month.

[eyeball]

29 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Because 'reflecting developments" isn't "caused by".   If they were 'Caused' by they'd be part of the 50 percent

Except they clearly say these reflecting development account for another 35% on top of the 50%.

So 50 and another 35 adds up to 85.  Agreed?

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

The report doesn't subtract anything it only adds.

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Except they clearly say these reflecting development account for another 35% on top of the 50%.

Yes.  There is 100 percent.  One thing accounts for 50 percent. Another thing that is completely different than the first thing accounts for another 35 percent. Other thins account for the remaining percent.

For god's sake - you do have any idea how stupid this is making you look? he who claims not to go to extremes to defend Trudeau

external factors account for 50 percent. Thats'  it.   That's all.  ALL external factors account for 50 percent. THat's the most you get.

It does NOT say "external factors account for 50 percent and external factors also account for another 35 percent. That would be beyond 1diotic.

35 percent of the factors are issues that reflect global challenges but are internal.  Like covid response. And if you read both reports thats clear. And it could have been resolved with a 3 percent reduction in spending.

And now - other groups are saying the same things. What's affecting interest/inflation over target is gov't spending and immigration, with a little bit of taxation and policy thrown in.

And they're saying they told the gov't about this back at the time.

So trudeau was about half the problem, now he's pretty much the whole problem for the most part.  You can't twist english enough to make that not true  

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

For god's sake - you do have any idea how stupid this is making you look? he who claims not to go to extremes to defend Trudeau

I'm not defending Trudeau, I'm mocking the lengths you go to when you're on the attack.

It's a cheap thrill because you make it so extremely simple to do so.

In the meantime can you explain why they say

Purely domestic factors account for a small, but important, share of inflation.

Do you think maybe they mean the missing 15%?

You better add that 15% to the 50% you say Trudeau is responsible for if you don't want to look like you're apologizing for him.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 1/11/2024 at 6:01 PM, 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. 

Either that or their corporate masters want it because more consumers mean more consumption.   But how is it helping regular Canadians?  

[Quote]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?[/quote]

Yup.  There's obviously a reason and I don't trust them at all for it to not be a self serving one, especially if its hurting them in the polls.

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Either that or their corporate masters want it because more consumers mean more consumption.   But how is it helping regular Canadians?

Canada's corporate masters get richer faster - Ottawa's Prime Directive.

How could we possibly get by without wealthier corporate masters - we'd be doomed without them wouldn't we?

[Quarmart]

This immigration policy debate is heating up. It's essential to have open discussions without resorting to name-calling.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I'm not defending Trudeau,

Of course you're defending trudeau. You always do - and then claim you don't support him at all.

But then again, everyone already knew you were a pretty frequent liar  

 

Quote

 

In the meantime can you explain why they say

Purely domestic factors account for a small, but important, share of inflation.

 

Sure - covid isn't a 'purely domestic' factor even though our response is entirely domestic. So even tho the covid spending is 100 percent in the control of the gov't it's something that reflects a global development. Even immigration isn't purely domestic. Vancouver city raising it's property tax is domestic and does affect inflation. That would be purely domestic (that did happen btw). Rents going up are purely domestic.

It's really not that complicated.

50 percent of inflation that we FIRST experienced was caused by global or international factors.

35  percent was a result of things that we had control over but were reflected globally such as covid. Covid was something everyone had to deal with - but our response WAS our own.

the rest included purely domestic factors that did not reflect struggles outside of canada. Like cities raising propoerty taxes etc.

Additionally - as you keep dodging because it proves you and moonpie wrong is that according to the same people if trudeau had reduced spending by even 3 percent, there would have been no need to raise interest rates to fight inflation.

Of course nowadays it's a lot more than just 50 percent of the current above target inflation/interest rates.  But we're talking about the first spike.

A 6 year old child can understand that.  It's pathetic how hard you struggle to defend trudeau and the liberals when the language is clear, and repeated by others so many times.

Your buddy trudeau was and is the primary source of our inflation and could have wiped it out with a 3 percent reduction in spending. And was warned but he didn't care.

 

[Gaétan]

This is not immigration the problem it is money, we just have to abolish it. people can't afford to build apartments with an interest rate like it is

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Gaétan said:

This is not immigration the problem it is money, we just have to abolish it. people can't afford to build apartments with an interest rate like it is

ANd if we abolish money theyll be able to afford it?

If we abolish food will they also stop being hungry? LOL

[Gaétan]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

ANd if we abolish money theyll be able to afford it?

If we abolish food will they also stop being hungry? LOL

There is no reason to keep a system of money if it is a problem.

[eyeball]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure - covid isn't a 'purely domestic' factor even though our response is entirely domestic. So even tho the covid spending is 100 percent in the control of the gov't it's something that reflects a global development.

Mmm hmm...uh huh.

This would probably be a lot be easier if you simply said everything in the world is Trudeau's fault without trying to explain why.

 

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, Gaétan said:

There is no reason to keep a system of money if it is a problem.

There is no reason to keep a system of food if its' a problem

There is no reason to worry about air if it's a problem.

I tell you what - if you think money is such a problem you give up all yours and let us know how it works for you.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Mmm hmm...uh huh.

Crap. I've melted your brain again. No drooling pls.

Quote

This would probably be a lot be easier if you simply said everything in the world is Trudeau's fault without trying to explain why.

It would be easier if you had an intellect that was larger than an aging tree sloth and could understand basic english, but here we are  

Kid - this was easy to begin with. There was nothing complicated - 50 percent foreign, 35 percent internal but relfecting world issues, 15 percent purely domestic.

Trudeau is responsible for the inflation - the OP article says so, all the banks by this point have said so, maklin has strongly suggested it, economists everywhere agree.....

The hold out here is you. You're so desperate to defend trudeau that you've become delusional in your fevered efforts. 

If trudeau spent less and brought in fewer immigrants we'd have no inflation/interest problems.  These are federal responsibilities.  You're mad because trudeau is being held to account for his own responsibilities.

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Crap. I've melted your brain again. No drooling pls.

You melted your own brain doing desperate mental gymnastics to make these quotes mean something that doesn't so obviously torpedo your clueless bullshitting.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Kid - this was easy to begin with. There was nothing complicated - 50 percent foreign, 35 percent internal but relfecting world issues, 15 percent purely domestic.

It's definitely not complicated, and it's definitely not saying what you pretend it does.  

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.

I don't see any mention of "internal but reflecting world issues" there.  That was Fox-believe fantasy.  

Those two quotes cannot be true alongside your claim.  Trudeau can't have been responsible for over 50% of the inflation spike we experienced, when we already have 85% specifically accounted for.  

 

Edited January 17 by Moonbox

[Moonlight Graham]

2 hours ago, Gaétan said:

There is no reason to keep a system of money if it is a problem.

Abolishing money doesn't build more homes.  Price is determined by a simple math formula:  # of people vs # of homes.  Supply and demand = price.  If you increase demand every year and the supply of homes can't keep up the prices of homes will continue to go up.

If people start buying up homes as investment properties too because they see these housing price increases as a good investment with no financial disincentive to do so it will just increase the demand even more and make the problem even worse.