How Canada's Middle Class got Shafted

[I am Groot]

Lowest productivity around, no innovation, no interest in R&D, government being big brother, ever-growing, ever creeping into every aspect of business and life, more rules, more regulations, more income redistribution, more supervision, more taxes, heavy, heavy risk avoidance in all things causing still more rules and regulations, more forms, more reports, more lawyers, subsidize the poor, subsidize the losers, subsidize the addicts, subsidize the poor performers, the unemployed, the natives, more equity and less merit, jealousy and antipathy for the rich and successful, more immigration, still more immigration, more foreign workers to depress wages, more foreign students to give the army of bureaucrats at colleges and universities something to do, more government, more taxes, less freedom.

But the reality is that our middle class is facing a serious problem, and the reasons for it are puzzling. The benefits of this educated work force, research-intensive higher education and highly profitable business sector are not translating into economic well-being for the middle class. Real median wages of Canadians have barely changed since 1976 (yes, that was 48 years, or two generations ago). As a result, Canadians need a two-income household and must work for longer hours than their international peers to achieve comparable standards of living.

To put it in sharp, painful, middle-class perspective: Analysis of data from the OECD and Statistics Canada on the way people spend their time shows that Canadian couples now work so much that they have a full eight months less time to spend with their children before they turn 18, than their peers in other rich OECD countries and Group of Seven (G7) economies. Indeed, Canadians have lost more than 10 per cent of their leisure time since 1988.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-how-canadas-middle-class-got-shafted/

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Real median wages of Canadians have barely changed since 1976 (yes, that was 48 years, or two generations ago).

Yup... I've posted about this many times around here....

What your G&M article is reporting on

...is not some back-of-the-napkin approximation. According to a groundbreaking new working paper by Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation, had the more equitable income distributions of the three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974) merely held steady, the aggregate annual income of Americans earning below the 90th percentile would have been $2.5 trillion higher in the year 2018 alone. That is an amount equal to nearly 12 percent of GDP—enough to more than double median income—enough to pay every single working American in the bottom nine deciles an additional $1,144 a month. Every month. Every single year.

https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/

There's no no end in sight and like so many of the most important issues affecting us greed is a global issue.

The richest 1 percent have amassed $42 trillion in new wealth over the past decade, nearly 34 times more than the entire bottom 50 percent of the world’s population,

https://www.oxfam.ca/news/top-1-percent-bags-over-40-trillion-in-new-wealth-during-past-decade-as-taxes-on-the-rich-reach-historic-lows/

Unfortunately this issue, again like so many of the most important issues affecting us, is a very deep right vs left issue so there's nothing we can seemingly do about it.

Some people seem to think the number of billionaires a country's economy generates is a better more important metric to measure human well being, fairness and so on. I dunno, what do you think?

Edited September 22, 2024 by eyeball

[I am Groot]

43 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yup... I've posted about this many times around here....

What your G&M article is reporting on

...is not some back-of-the-napkin approximation. According to a groundbreaking new working paper by Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation, had the more equitable income distributions of the three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974) merely held steady, the aggregate annual income of Americans earning below the 90th percentile would have been $2.5 trillion higher in the year 2018 alone. That is an amount equal to nearly 12 percent of GDP—enough to more than double median income—enough to pay every single working American in the bottom nine deciles an additional $1,144 a month. Every month. Every single year.

https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/

There's no no end in sight and like so many of the most important issues affecting us greed is a global issue.

The people with the clout to talk to politicians and get small, little-noticed alterations made to the voluminous tax codes are generally the representatives of the very well-off.  And incrementally, year by year, the tax codes have changed to provide a ton of small loopholes that aren't really accessible to ordinary people. That's how we have the rich - not the rich as defined by Trudeau but the guys who have limosines - have managed to slash their taxes by so much. Yes, they still pay a big chunk of our taxes, but less as a percentage of their actual income than the middle class does. The very richest don't even get much in the way of salaries compared to other means of income. 

In the US, the rich still have close access to and control of politicians. They shouldn't have the same influence in Canada, but for some reason their influence persists. It ought to be a simple and popular thing, for example, to increase the tax rates on dividends and capital gains to 100% for those over a certain level of income. Say over $500k That's not doctors or engineers. We could make exceptions for entrepreneurs who start up new companies. Say a ten or twenty-year exception. 

[eyeball]

Or the rich could just pay better wages like their grandfather's did. That generation  following two world wars and in some cases the loss of sons on battlefields came to realize that gross economic inequity is what caused these wars and many obviously saw fit to do better given the share of capital gains they paid our grandfathers.

Then it all changed and greed returned with a vengeance.

49 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

It ought to be a simple and popular thing, for example, to increase the tax rates on dividends and capital gains to 100% for those over a certain level of income.

It'll probably be easier to start another war.

[eyeball]

52 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The people with the clout to talk to politicians and get small, little-noticed alterations made to the voluminous tax codes are generally the representatives of the very well-off

Yes well, we need to somehow get in between these.

Cameras and microphones are the only thing I ever see being up to the job. Either that or the invention of a time viewer or chronoscope employing a type of time travel, which is theoretically possible, but where we simply view the past as opposed to physically going there.

It'll probably still be easier to just start a war and kill them all.

[Moonbox]

On 9/21/2024 at 8:51 PM, I am Groot said:

The people with the clout to talk to politicians and get small, little-noticed alterations made to the voluminous tax codes are generally the representatives of the very well-off.  And incrementally, year by year, the tax codes have changed to provide a ton of small loopholes that aren't really accessible to ordinary people. That's how we have the rich - not the rich as defined by Trudeau but the guys who have limosines - have managed to slash their taxes by so much.

I have to say, I've come to appreciate your posts more and more over the last year, even if I frequently disagreed with you.  Whatever your positions are, they're at least very clearly your own.  You're not just another ignorant opinion shouter regurgitating tribal mantra.  

I always get a laugh out of the geniuses who've never opened an economic textbook try to teach us about trickle-down economics, and how sheltering the wealth and reducing the taxes of the ultra-rich who are exporting their jobs to Bangladesh is good for them.  

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I always get a laugh out of the geniuses who've never opened an economic textbook try to teach us about trickle-down economics, and how sheltering the wealth and reducing the taxes of the ultra-rich who are exporting their jobs to Bangladesh is good for them.  

Opening a history book and recounting how gross inequity leads to violent deadly revolutions and wars doesn't seem to knock any more sense into them. They probably think its equity that leads to these.

Of course it's really power inequity and having greater access to power that's the problem. 

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Opening a history book and recounting how gross inequity leads to violent deadly revolutions and wars doesn't seem to knock any more sense into them. They probably think its equity that leads to these.

Of course it's really power inequity and having greater access to power that's the problem. 

Actually the number of wars and rebellions inside legit democracies is extremely low compared to historical averages. 

its not wealth inequality that starts conflicts.  It's lack of opportunity and the ability to earn a reasonable living. 

When people can make their own way and earn what they want in a fair and open market then they aren't interested in war or rebellion or the like. 

We've seen 10 years of left wing "wealth redistribution' under Trudeau and Canada is poor, angrier, and more prone to violence than it's ever been. And before that we saw significant drags on the economy due to high relative taxes from other liberal governments.

We need to eliminate unnecessary government services, focus our energy and money on core government services and reduce taxes and increase opportunity. Hopefully the businesses will start to come back and we'll see investment come back to Canada. It's been leaving the last few years

[suds]

 The best way to measure living standards is to ask yourself if you're better off today than you were 20 years ago, or if your children will live to see a better life than you have. The cracks in the system developing today are a product of the road we're headed down which is unsustainable. Achieving world economic growth on a yearly basis is not compatible with the transitioning of the energy supply from fossil fuels to renewables (which all economies depend on). It's not even compatible if the energy supply was kept at 100% fossil fuels because it's not an infinite resource. Fossil fuels today represent about 75 to 80% of the world's total primary energy mix and the goal is to reduce that to 0% and very rapidly. I wish you all the luck in the world but it's impossible to do with the present technologies available to us. Add to that a world population increase of a few billion souls before any projected decrease of world population near the later part of the century. Think of it as your slice of pie (or living standards) getting a lot smaller. And if that doesn't kill us, then debt will.  Governments go into more and more debt because they figure future economic growth will add to their revenues and pay off the debts they've accumulating so far. But what happens if economic growth is a thing of the past and can't pay off their debts? There are things they could do, but then your money becomes worthless. What we should be trying to calculate is..... 1) how much energy can renewables realistically provide in future years as fossil fuels get phased out, 2)  how our economies should be structured with the energy available to us, 3) the kind of living standards we desire and set population controls to achieve those standards. It is a bit draconian, but the world's resources are not infinite, energy from renewables (which have to built from  resources) is not infinite, economic growth is not infinite, and there is a trade-off between population and living standards.

[BeaverFever]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

We've seen 10 years of left wing "wealth redistribution' under Trudeau and Canada is poor, angrier, and more prone to violence than it's ever been. And before that we saw significant drags on the economy due to high relative taxes from other liberal governments.

We need to eliminate unnecessary government services, focus our energy and money on core government services and reduce taxes and increase opportunity. Hopefully the businesses will start to come back and we'll see investment come back to Canada. It's been leaving the last few years

Well we had 40 years of wealth redistribution under Reagan/Thatcher’s neoliberal economics that introduced a new form of predatory capitalism that never existed before. It still governs how our economies operate. Corporations and the ultra rich have seen their fortunes increase by orders of magnitude, all at the expense of the middle and working classes.
 

Tax cuts aren’t the magic solution conservatives claim they are. Just look how Liz Truss and Sam Brownback devastated their respective economies with tax cuts that simply drove up public debt  but didn’t bring in new business. Kansas literally had to close public schools on Fridays because Brownback’s tax cuts left the state too broke to even operate schools 5 days per week. In turn parents had to quit their jobs, switch to part-time or spend big bucks on day care making people’s financial situation worse. Liz Truss caused the British pound to drop like a rock and was forced to resign so quickly her 3-week term famously couldn’t even outlast a head of lettuce. 
 

Businesses aren’t gypsy hobos who will relocate at the drop of hat chasing whoever happens to have the lowest tax rate at any point in time. Relocation costs millions, tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars up front and is often the result of extensive multi-year planning and corporate strategy, in which tax rates aren’t usually the primary consideration.  Neoliberal austerity also gives you social and urban decay like streets that are gridlocked and public transit and airports that are unreliable and overcrowded. That drives businesses and talent away too..

 It should be noted that both the poverty rate and child poverty rate drastically reduced under the Trudeau government. At last count, 2 million Canadians including 650,000 children were lifted out of poverty since 2016. And when stay at home parents are able to afford daycare and return to the workforce that is good for the economy too, conservatives talk about it like childcare money is simply shot into outer space or something. 
 

I posted this same article as the OP in the “economy” topic, the gist of the article is business and government alike notoriously squander resources amd advantages on non-innovative endeavours 

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Well we had 40 years of wealth redistribution under Reagan/Thatcher’s neoliberal economics that introduced a new form of predatory capitalism that never existed before.

I posted this same article as the OP in the “economy” topic, the gist of the article is business and government alike notoriously squander resources amd advantages on non-innovative endeavours 

LOL no we haven't!  FFS  a) neither introduced a 'new form of capitalism', and b) both of those people have been gone for 40 years and in both cases there's been right and left wing gov'ts in power. Are you saying Biden is a proponent of 'predatory capitalism'?  Give  your head a shake. 

It still governs how our economies operate. Corporations and the ultra rich have seen their fortunes increase by orders of magnitude, all at the expense of the middle and working classes.

Quote

Tax cuts aren’t the magic solution conservatives claim they are. Just look how Liz Truss and Sam Brownback devastated their respective economies with tax cuts that simply drove up public debt  but didn’t bring in new business.

Ahh yes, the 'all conservatives think the same" routine  

Nothing is absolute. There is such a thing as a bad tax cuts. Cutting taxes to zero would have a negative effect. And they're rarely effective if done without other measures as well. 

BUT - they are also very often EXTREMELY effective. If done right. 

Nothing gov't does can really 'create' business.  What gov't does is provide a fertile ground for business. High taxes salts the earth. 

28 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Businesses aren’t gypsy hobos who will relocate at the drop of hat chasing whoever happens to have the lowest tax rate at any point in time.

They pretty much are.  TONNES of us businesses moved to canada during harper's time for that reason, to the point where it became a major story in the states. 

Business investment is now FLEEING canada for the first time in history.  Look how much foreign investment has fled Canada since the Liberals took over | Financial Post

Quote

 It should be noted that both the poverty rate and child poverty rate drastically reduced under the Trudeau government. 

It should be noted he changed the definition of both to make that work for him. 

 

Government services and taxes hurt the economy. They all do.  Some are necessary and the 'hurt' is worth it.   Haivng a military for example. We make no profit from that. 

But obviously it is to be kept as low as possible.  IF we can't pay for it without borrowing aside from the occasional downturn, then we cna't afford it and should do without it. 

Trudeau has spent almost 70 million on a gun buy back that hasn't bought a single gun.  He spent 250 million on 6 days of airline food. Hundreds of millions on an app that didnt' work and someone recreated on their spare time over a weekend for fun. 

There's shittonnes of room for spending AND tax cuts and that ABSOLUTELY WILL make a huge difference to our economy. 

[herbie]

In a system where the wealthy get tongue bathed and the most destitute must rally to obtain the basics of life, the middle class has been ignored for decades.

Time to speak up and engage our brains and the majority of ballots and choose people who actually represent us. HINT: it's not the people who've kept us fighting against each other and ruled for centuries.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, herbie said:

In a system where the wealthy get tongue bathed and the most destitute must rally to obtain the basics of life, the middle class has been ignored for decades.

Time to speak up and engage our brains and the majority of ballots and choose people who actually represent us. HINT: it's not the people who've kept us fighting against each other and ruled for centuries.

Time to put the bottle down more like. That really wasn't even comprehensible.

All we need to do is start making better choices as voters. Any sign of actual corruption should be punished with wiping that party out. Any politician that talks about anything other than their plans to move the country forward and their policy should be ignored and not voted for. Any politician that refuses to answer a question with a direct answer instead of immediately talking about something else and avoiding the question should be shunned

We don't need this to be a personality contest again. This should be a simple choice about policy rather than party preference or who got the Zinger against who or which candidate said something that can be twisted into racism 12 years ago. But we need to hear about is what people's policies are today, how they intend to achieve those policies, and what their qualifications and skills are.

It's a job interview it's not american idol. 

[BeaverFever]

On 9/23/2024 at 7:53 PM, CdnFox said:

LOL no we haven't!  FFS  a) neither introduced a 'new form of capitalism', and b) both of those people have been gone for 40 years and in both cases there's been right and left wing gov'ts in power. Are you saying Biden is a proponent of 'predatory capitalism'?  Give  your head a shake. .

Ahh yes, the 'all conservatives think the same" routine  

Nothing is absolute. There is such a thing as a bad tax cuts. Cutting taxes to zero would have a negative effect. And they're rarely effective if done without other measures as well. 

BUT - they are also very often EXTREMELY effective. If done right. 

Nothing gov't does can really 'create' business.  What gov't does is provide a fertile ground for business. High taxes salts the earth. 

They pretty much are.  TONNES of us businesses moved to canada during harper's time for that reason, to the point where it became a major story in the states. 

Business investment is now FLEEING canada for the first time in history.  Look how much foreign investment has fled Canada since the Liberals took over | Financial Post

It should be noted he changed the definition of both to make that work for him. 

 

Government services and taxes hurt the economy. They all do.  Some are necessary and the 'hurt' is worth it.   Haivng a military for example. We make no profit from that. 

But obviously it is to be kept as low as possible.  IF we can't pay for it without borrowing aside from the occasional downturn, then we cna't afford it and should do without it. 

Trudeau has spent almost 70 million on a gun buy back that hasn't bought a single gun.  He spent 250 million on 6 days of airline food. Hundreds of millions on an app that didnt' work and someone recreated on their spare time over a weekend for fun. 

There's shittonnes of room for spending AND tax cuts and that ABSOLUTELY WILL make a huge difference to our economy. 

Yes we have the new type of capitalism which is called neoliberalism, we’ve been over this many times. Reagan and Thatcher were not it’s creators but the first to implement it and made many unprecedented reforms. Yes the economy grew and the mega-rich got even mega-richer as did corporations. But the middle class did not share in the prosperity and in fact working longer hours and both spouses working, lack of retirement savings became the norm as unions were busted and pension and retirement benefits disappeared. Consumer protections were rolled back, jobs were outsourced overseas, university tuitions skyrocketed, household debt skyrocketed and so on. 
 

And yes I am saying that Liberals and Democrats haven’t been able or willing to reverse neoliberalism, which for 40+ years and counting still remains the consensus of the business establishment and most mainstream politicians of either party. Only in very recent years has there been cracks showing in this establishment consensus and much of the debate is not about ending neoliberalism but rather about taking the harsher edges off it to make life slightly easier for the working and middle classes 

Every Republican president since Reagan including Trump has massively increased national debt with their massive tax cuts that’s just a fact, all spouting the same neoliberal trickle-down propaganda as Brownback and Truss.   Funny how republicans are never opposed to debt when Republicans run it up worse than the Democrats do  

 The thing is what’s considered “high taxes” is subjective and arbitrary. Many third world countries have low taxes nobody holds those places up as ideal. For example businesses that require educated workers would rather pay taxes in a jurisdiction with quality schools and universities than a place where there are none. Business also rely on law and order, functioning, non-corrupt legal systems where they can enforce contracts sue people including the government, and functioning non-corrupt financial systems so they can safeguard their money. They rely on a great number public services and utilities which they expect to be reliable and well-regulated, such as roads plowed in winter so they can ship their goods and workers are able to get to work. The list goes on. It’s ridiculous to suggest that having access to these services hurts the economy. Go take a look at any country that has few government services and regulations and tell me which ones have great economies. 
 

I will say again there is no example in history of any developed country running consistent balanced budgets over an extended period with the possible recent exception of petro-states in the Persian gulf and Norway where oil revenue is largely owned and controlled by the state. Other countries like Canada have run austerity regimes over 10 or so consecutive years but usually at great cost to citizens who had to suffer crowded and closed hospitals, schools, defunded military etc and ultimately it’s not sustainable.   USA has not consistently balanced budgets since the 1800s and yet became the world’s unrivalled superpower, the more the government spent the wealthier it became.  The same can be said of the British empire and most other nations. 
 

 

Edited September 25, 2024 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Yes we have the new type of capitalism which is called neoliberalism, we’ve been over this many times.
 

 

We have never spoken of it that i recall and no, there's no 'neoliberalism' other than in the small minds of those who think life is more like dungeons and dragons and you need 'to invent classes' and 'names' for all your imaginary characters. 

No, there were no 'unprecedented' reforms. Name one that had 'no precedent'. 

And the middle class did pretty good all things considered.  There were slowdowns and such as there always are but they did fine.  And they benefitted from all kinds of new tech and medicine driven by that industry.  How many emails did people in the 70's get?  How many iphones did your gransfather have?  Think medtech improved?

But there were economic slowdowns, for sure.  ANd various democrat and republican policies made things better or worse.  But over all life was fine (and bell bottom jeans were finally wiped out forever).  

As to spouses.... funny story there. 

Leading into the 70's a woman's income could not be used to calcluate how large a mortgage a couple could have. It was assumed she'd get pregnant at some point and have to quit. So any home bought had to be bought with a mortgage the man could qualify for. 

Naturally women felt this was unfair. And it was. So after intense lobbying the banks began counting the woman's income as well. During that time it became more and more acceptable for women to work after being married. And of course now with two incomes couples could buy much larger homes.

Guess what happened to Real estate pricing? Yep, the same thing that always happens. Prices went up over time to reach the maximum amount that could be afforded. This continued through the 70s and into the '80s as women worked more and more. Pretty soon by the  90s you almost had to have two incomes to afford a house. At least a part-time or lower income for the misses.

By this stage of the game things have progressed to the point where you need two people working full-time in good paying jobs to afford a home. Hell just to afford rent. With not enough homes to go around simply being a single income earner isn't going to get the job done. 

That wasn't capitalism that caused that. Was an unfortunate and unexpected byproduct of the women's rights movements in the 70s.

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Every Republican president since Reagan including Trump has massively increased national debt with their massive tax cuts that’s just a fact

it isn't.  Biden didn't cut overall taxes.  Most didn't. 

Here's revenues.  Sorry kiddo, you're just wrong

U.S. government - receipts 2029 | Statista

Sure there were the odd dip around recessions and covid but as you can see regardless of tax cuts revenues shot up like crazy most of the time. 

THe us has deficit due to excessive program spending, especially under biden but trump wasn't much better and neither was obama.  It is NOT due to 'tax breaks'. 

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I will say again there is no example in history of any developed country running consistent balanced budgets over an extended period with the possible recent exception of petro-states in the Persian gulf

So what you're saying is this 'neo liberalism' you're referring to has always been that way.  Well i guess at least shooting your OWN foot is an easy target   

I guess it depends what you mean by 'balanced' and 'extended'.   Most gov'ts go a little over budget some of the time and there's a reason.  Good ones tend to go underbudget (struturally at least) during good times and there's a reason. 

And a balanced budget is NOT "austerity".  That shows a remarkable lack of understanding of soverign finance. 

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

USA has not consistently balanced budgets since the 1800s and yet became the world’s unrivalled superpower,

The us is starting to run into troubles with it's debt and only got this far because it's an anchor currency for several reasons.  If it was not, or if canada tried something like that, we would be wiped out. 

You probably weren't an adult the last time our debt spending got out of control.  It lead to the stagnation of the 80s (remember when you said the middle class was suffering?)  and  people started talking about bankruptcy for the country which would have been horrrible, and the costs of servicing debt was insane Which means you had to collect a tonne of taxes just to get PAST that before you spent a nickle on services. 

And every society and economy that practices severe deficit financing winds up paying for it and suffering a lower quality of life.  Japan is the so far exception but most economists agree that's a time bomb that will blow up spectacularly. 

You have to live within your means.  That's just the way the world works. There's no 'Magic Money".   You don't have to run balanced budgets every year, but you should be close to balance or at balance the vast majority of the years especially when times are good. 

What trudeau did was spend like a drunk sailor during the good years and then spend WORSE during the bad years.  ANd that gives you inflation, reduced quality of life, lower business investment, reduced opportunity, reduced gov't services and a dysfunctional medical system and we're seeing ALL of that right now. 

[cougar]

On 9/21/2024 at 9:14 AM, I am Groot said:

 

As a result, Canadians need a two-income household and must work for longer hours than their international peers to achieve comparable standards of living.

 

When you have to work that much longer you can never achieve a comparable standard of living. Unless one believes that standard of living is expressed only by what one can buy.

On 9/21/2024 at 5:03 PM, eyeball said:

Some people seem to think the number of billionaires a country's economy generates is a better more important metric to measure human well being, fairness and so on. I dunno, what do you think?

Who are those people? They must speak on behalf of the billionaires.  The more billionaires, the sicker the society is.

[I am Groot]

18 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I will say again there is no example in history of any developed country running consistent balanced budgets over an extended period with the possible recent exception of petro-states in the Persian gulf and Norway where oil revenue is largely owned and controlled by the state. Other countries like Canada have run austerity regimes over 10 or so consecutive years but usually at great cost to citizens who had to suffer crowded and closed hospitals, schools, defunded military etc and ultimately it’s not sustainable.  

If that's the case (Sweden?) and I won't argue the point, it's not because of 'neoliberalism' or capitalism. It's because of democracy. Because once the budget is balanced some power-hungry twat will come along and promise all kinds of goodies to the voters to buy their votes. Witness the Republicans down south, and Trudeau here.

So, ultimately, the problem is an ignorant electorate due to a lack of proper education.

18 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

USA has not consistently balanced budgets since the 1800s and yet became the world’s unrivalled superpower, the more the government spent the wealthier it became.  The same can be said of the British empire and most other nations. 

No, it doesn't work that way. It works when your currency is the world standard. Everyone using it for trade props up the currency. Without it being the world standard, too much debt starts to impact that currency, and then inflation rockets up out of control. 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

If that's the case (Sweden?) and I won't argue the point, it's not because of 'neoliberalism' or capitalism. It's because of democracy. Because once the budget is balanced some power-hungry twat will come along and promise all kinds of goodies to the voters to buy their votes. Witness the Republicans down south, and Trudeau here.

So, ultimately, the problem is an ignorant electorate due to a lack of proper education.

Governments never need to balance budgets. There’s a limit to how much debt they can hold at any given point in time but it’s not the “zero” number people on the right have recently been claiming.  

For example Japan’s Government Debt to GDP in Japan averaged 148.49 % of GDP from 1980 until 2023, reaching an all time high of 260.10 percent of GDP in 2022 and a record low of 50.60 percent of GDP in 1980. As of last year it was 255%.  Japan still exists. 
 

The religion of balanced budgets has only recently become widely accepted as a tenet of neoliberalism but previously it wasn’t widely accepted especially when British empire and the American empire rose to prominence out of government spending and debt. 
 

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

No, it doesn't work that way. It works when your currency is the world standard. Everyone using it for trade props up the currency. Without it being the world standard, too much debt starts to impact that currency, and then inflation rockets up out of control. 

Youve got it backwards. The US dollar became the world standard AFTERWARDS, not BEFORE.
 

Also the same thing  worked for Canada and Western Europe it was government spending and planning that created the third world standard of living. Public sanitation, water, sewer, building codes, consumer protections, roads, highways, airports schools universities, on and on and on….those things didn’t just pop up spontaneously they were planned and funded by the government.  They were DELIVERED by the private sector but only at the behest and expense of government. 

[CdnFox]

50 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Governments never need to balance budgets. There’s a limit to how much debt they can hold at any given point in time but it’s not the “zero” number people on the right have recently been claiming.  

They do if they want to have the maximum prosperity for their people.

You're right in the sense that governments can screw up to a certain degree and cost their people the benefits of good fiscal management and get away with it for a time. There is a certain level of incompetence and bad behavior that the market and economy can tolerate without completely failing or anything.

But that still makes it bad. Many people survive drug addiction, that does not make drug addiction good.

Of course, blind adherence to always running a balanced budget is not a good idea either.

But generally speaking when times are good you want to run balanced budgets or very close to. One times or more difficult than borrowing may make sense.

But if you want to have the best economy possible and provide the greatest amount of services over the longest. Of time one of the main components is running a balanced or near balanced budget

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

So, ultimately, the problem is an ignorant electorate due to a lack of proper education.

Education systems have been blamed for society's problems forever. Usually followed by prescriptions for education systems that will fix things from people who blame them.

Rinse and repeat.

What the electorate is mostly ignorant of is what the elected are doing on and with our dime, especially the power-hungry twats you mentioned.

[BeaverFever]

On 9/25/2024 at 8:17 PM, CdnFox said:

They do if they want to have the maximum prosperity for their people.

Actual historical evidence suggests otherwise. As Ive said repeatedly

1) no non-oil country has ever consistently run balanced budgets over extended periods and 

2) the countries that did have the maximum prosperity for their people (ie USA and the entire first world) ran substantial deficits for substantial periods of time. 
 

On 9/25/2024 at 8:17 PM, CdnFox said:

There is a certain level of incompetence and bad behavior that the market and economy can tolerate without completely failing or anything.

The market itself is rife with incompetence and bad behaviour but what it wants most of all in the physical and social infrastructure to conduct business. That means publicly funded roads, airports, education, sanitation, law enforcement etc etc. Do you honestly believe businesses are indifferent or opposed to these things?  In fact a big reason for deficits is because than DEMAND these services but don’t want to pay taxes to cover them.
 

 In fact more so than taxes,  public services are the primary reason a company would chose for its location  Do you think a company that  requires a highly educated workers would relocate to country where education is scarce?  Do you think a company that relies on shipping would choose to relocate to a country whose roads and ports are poor quality and unreliable?   It’s only AFTER these many types of concerns are addressed to the company’s satisfaction that they start looking at taxes  

Lastly I will point out that economic growth only occurs when money is borrowed as that is the only time that new wealth is created. While public sector borrowing shouldn’t be the primary driver of growth, it provides a “baseload” of borrowing  That money isn’t shot into space, it’s paid to workers and private sector contractors who in turn spend it in the market economy supporting other businesses and other jobs  Theres a reason Ottawa an provincial capital cities tend to have lower unemployment numbers during recessions compared to rest of the country and that’s not a bad thing  

 

On 9/25/2024 at 8:17 PM, CdnFox said:

But if you want to have the best economy possible and provide the greatest amount of services over the longest. Of time one of the main components is running a balanced or near balanced budget

I will echo my earlier comments, to state once again that no only is there ZERO historical real-world evidence of this claim, that actual historical evidence directly contradicts it. 

[herbie]

[CdnFox]

48 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Actual historical evidence suggests otherwise. As Ive said repeatedly

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true

It does not historically. Sorry. 

Quote

1) no non-oil country has ever consistently run balanced budgets over extended periods and 

So? 

Quote

2) the countries that did have the maximum prosperity for their people (ie USA and the entire first world) ran substantial deficits for substantial periods of time. 

Well not really no.  I guess it depends what you mean 'substatial'.  The current insane ones we see are relatively new. 

Take a look

 

So until the economic collapse in 2008 defiits were quite small and in some cases non existent.  And as the country recovered they were heading down. 

Trump blew it and started growing them again believing it would pay off long term and then covid of course, and then biden of course. 

But that's recent history.  And it's already causing substantial problems

Canada had back to back surpluses for over a decade, ran into trouble during the downturn and again got back to balanced with a THRIVING economy - which was then desetroyed by trudaeu. 

Before the FIRST trudeau we also had mostly balanced or near balanced budgets.  

So you're just not correct. Budgets historically are pretty balanced, they don't run substantial deficits unless there's a war or economic crash or the like 

Which is how it should be.  Near balance when times are good, borrow to get through tough times. 

Historically the US and Canada run non-substantial deficits. 

 

Quote

 In fact more so than taxes,  public services are the primary reason a company would chose for its location  

Nope. 

Cost of living and quality of life can be big factors as they attract labour pools but by and large it boils down to whether or not they're profitable and stable.  And that means modest taxes and sound economy. 

Business investment for the FIRST TIME in our entire history is leaving at a rate than its' coming in.  And we now currently have some of the highest taxes AND the highest deficits ever. 

Figure it out. 

Quote

I will echo my earlier comments, to state once again that no only is there ZERO historical real-world evidence of this claim, that actual historical evidence directly contradicts it. 

There isn't  Countries that propser over time dont' run massive deficits endlessly.  Sorry. 

Canada didn't. And when it did it suffered. 

The us didn't. And when it did it suffered. 

You don't have to run surpluses as long as you're population is growing. But you don't want to be running deficits. A deficit that's half a point Of the budget generally speaking isn't a problem provided the budget doesn't have a lot of wasteful spending in it. But right now we're running deficits that are double or triple that and our budgets are indeed full of wasteful spending. And it's dragging Canada down

[Five of swords]

On 9/21/2024 at 12:14 PM, I am Groot said:

Lowest productivity around, no innovation, no interest in R&D, government being big brother, ever-growing, ever creeping into every aspect of business and life, more rules, more regulations, more income redistribution, more supervision, more taxes, heavy, heavy risk avoidance in all things causing still more rules and regulations, more forms, more reports, more lawyers, subsidize the poor, subsidize the losers, subsidize the addicts, subsidize the poor performers, the unemployed, the natives, more equity and less merit, jealousy and antipathy for the rich and successful, more immigration, still more immigration, more foreign workers to depress wages, more foreign students to give the army of bureaucrats at colleges and universities something to do, more government, more taxes, less freedom.

But the reality is that our middle class is facing a serious problem, and the reasons for it are puzzling. The benefits of this educated work force, research-intensive higher education and highly profitable business sector are not translating into economic well-being for the middle class. Real median wages of Canadians have barely changed since 1976 (yes, that was 48 years, or two generations ago). As a result, Canadians need a two-income household and must work for longer hours than their international peers to achieve comparable standards of living.

To put it in sharp, painful, middle-class perspective: Analysis of data from the OECD and Statistics Canada on the way people spend their time shows that Canadian couples now work so much that they have a full eight months less time to spend with their children before they turn 18, than their peers in other rich OECD countries and Group of Seven (G7) economies. Indeed, Canadians have lost more than 10 per cent of their leisure time since 1988.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-how-canadas-middle-class-got-shafted/

The main reason anyone ever does anything remarkable is for the advancement of their people.

 

Canada doesn't have a people.

[CdnFox]

23 hours ago, herbie said:

Well i know you're not very powerful soooooo