chenGOD Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Justin Dumdreau. Such original. Much smart. Seriously, when did name calling become a part of the political discourse? I'm on an internet music forum having a non-serious discussion about politics. Not exactly required to treat this like a serious discussion. On the economy, the Harper govt did not exactly cover themselves in glory. Wait, what? Are you saying he didn't carefully manage spending during this completely shit global recession to have, by the numbers, the most success out of the major industrialized countries in the world in terms of layoffs, etc? Like I said, revisit this thread in a year and we can go over that 125B infrastructure plan he's got that every one of us will be financing directly out of our pockets. I've been very clear that I don't exactly like Harper or the conservatives, but having a school teacher (really, so talented he was never even promoted out of that? 40 years old and still a school teacher? You'd think a leader would maybe be promoted to a leadership role like principal, or be on the board of education or something?) with 2 years experience as an MP leading one of the richest and best countries in the world simply doesn't make any sense. Fiscal policy etc aside, he simply doesn't have what it takes to be a leader. How can you back someone that says oh "the budget will just balance itself". How does that not concern you? lol Conservatives were the least shitty of the choices at least for another 4 years. Edit: everyone's concerns seem to be "feelings" this time around. Maybe that's why I'm not "getting it" because mine are subdued from years of substance abuse, who knows. For me, discussions about the political future of our country are always serious. So the second grade name calling doesn't warrant any place in such discussions. What he actually said was "growing the economy requires serious commitment by the government and the budget will balance itself". Which on a national level is essentially true given that expenditures will largely be in line with revenues. Additionally, focusing on a balanced budget for a nation is not a viable basis for economic policy. A nation is not a household, so treating financial matters in that context is not fiscally wise. For more on that see here, here, here, and here. The gov't was largely saved from the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) through solid banking regulation from previous governments and a large surplus from the Martin government. While we did marginally better than the other G8 economies, that trend is reversing (increasing unemployment, lower revenues). Part of the problem is a lack of diversification of our economy. By focusing so much on the energy sector (especially oil), with the plunge in energy prices, the government reduced its ability to mitigate downward pressure on the economy. A good economist article on the problems of being a rich commodity exporting nation can be found here. A more in-depth study of the Harper government's economic management can be found here. While there are some issues with the report, its overall findings are accurate. As for financing government spending, we need to increase our corporate tax rate. Canada's average corporate tax rate is 26%, vs the US average corporate tax rate of 39%. We could stand to bump it up to 30%, remain very competitive, and increase revenue. We also need to stop subsidizing oil and coal producers through direct cash injections (I'm not referring to the silly IMF report which counts untaxed externalities), and instead pump that into more education (not just STEM, although that should take the lion's share). As to Mr. Trudeau's lack of experience, this is easily mitigated by choosing responsible advisers and assigning portfolios wisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Mughnus Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Justin Dumdreau. Such original. Much smart.Seriously, when did name calling become a part of the political discourse? You don't see the irony in calling someone that was name calling names and saying it's wrong to name call? lol As for financing government spending, we need to increase our corporate tax rate. Canada's average corporate tax rate is 26%, vs the US average corporate tax rate of 39%. We could stand to bump it up to 30%, remain very competitive, and increase revenue. We also need to stop subsidizing oil and coal producers through direct cash injections (I'm not referring to the silly IMF report which counts untaxed externalities), and instead pump that into more education (not just STEM, although that should take the lion's share). Yes For me, discussions about the political future of our country are always serious. So the second grade name calling doesn't warrant any place in such discussions. I simply can't put in the level of effort you can to have a serious conversation about this stuff online complete with citations and statistics and graphs and spreadsheets etc. I have to save that energy for my studies. I'm just here for casual conversation and education. Lets give things a few years and see what happens, I suppose. That's all we can do anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Mughnus Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 lol. Lighten up man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Mughnus Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 A nation is not a household, so treating financial matters in that context is not fiscally wise. For more on that see here, here, here, and here. It's not really much different than debt financing at a corporate level. Lots of carryover in the concepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 I'd argue they are quite different. Corporations exist to make profit. This is not a concern of the government. Governments are not worried about EBITD for example. Assets and liabilities exist in a different context for governments and corporations. Think macro rather than micro right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goiter Sanchez Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Think macro rather than micro right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ4AEaPAnqE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Mughnus Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 I'd argue they are quite different. Corporations exist to make profit. This is not a concern of the government. Governments are not worried about EBITD for example. Assets and liabilities exist in a different context for governments and corporations. Think macro rather than micro right? Yes sorry, to clarify I'm referring to such things as..... Have you ever seen a corporation finance a capital asset out of current profits/earnings/working capital? No. Even the richest debt finance. The same can be said for governments. Points at the US* Maintaining key financial ratios is important to the corporation, the government does an identical thing but they're called "key economic ratios" . etc. Yes macro vs micro. lol, Some of the base principles are the same though. As for your comment on governments not existing to make a profit.. That is dependent on kind of a shifting definition of "profit". Just as an example. I work for a "not for profit". I'm profiting. My wife is profiting.... Semantics I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricone RC Posted October 21, 2015 Author Share Posted October 21, 2015 he gov't was largely saved from the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) through solid banking regulation from previous governments and a large surplus from the Martin government. While we did marginally better than the other G8 economies, that trend is reversing (increasing unemployment, lower revenues). Part of the problem is a lack of diversification of our economy. I always thought natural resources were one of the big reasons Canada kept afloat around that time? Not just oil but minerals too, which were absolutely booming immediately prior to the 2008 shitstorm, and had basically recovered by mid-2009. So except for a short hiatus we could just keep digging shit up and flogging it to China as a remedy. Could be totally wrong tho, I'm no economist innit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJW Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 George of Canada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephyr_Nova Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I don't care much for Trudeau when I hear him speaking off the cuff (or what seems like "off the cuff" too much of the time), but he writes nice letters... assuming he actually wrote this: https://www.liberal.ca/open-letter-to-canadas-public-servants/ If the Libs can stay true to what's written there, I'd be pretty hopeful about where Canada's future is heading. (But of course that's the intended effect. Whether they'll follow through or not is left to be seen.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Mughnus Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Yes I hope they deliver on all of their promises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEK Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 [youtubehd]SuPRBDHD6_A[/youtubehd] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.