Canadian Political Events

Beyond Politics => General Discussion => Topic started by: MH on August 08, 2019, 01:15:14 pm

Title: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on August 08, 2019, 01:15:14 pm
MMT !
https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Modern-Monetary-Theory-threatens-revolution-in-economic-thinking

I've been reading about it.  Seems like a logical end point to 'money' in its current form.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on August 15, 2019, 08:41:45 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wm_Lew0kME

Clay Shirky talks Chinese innovation - pretty fascinating stuff
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on August 17, 2019, 09:06:03 am
David Blanchflower explains slow wage growth at PIE

https://youtu.be/44_Q3Ff9gmo

Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on August 19, 2019, 11:41:04 am
Mentioned in that article is the fact Japan is also the worlds largest creditor nation. The US is the largest debtor nation. So maybe using Japan as an example for the rest of us is not the best idea.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on August 19, 2019, 07:53:04 pm
Mentioned in that article is the fact Japan is also the worlds largest creditor nation. The US is the largest debtor nation. So maybe using Japan as an example for the rest of us is not the best idea.

Which article ?
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on August 19, 2019, 07:57:54 pm
Which article ?

The link you posted.

Quote
Not every country is in the same position as Japan, which is the world's largest creditor nation and has been clocking up current account surpluses since the early 1980s
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on August 19, 2019, 08:46:58 pm
Ok but
Quote
"For Japan has been running large fiscal deficits for more than 20 years and has consequently amassed a Mount Fuji-sized pile of outstanding government debt, equivalent to 250% of Japanese GDP, according to Japan's Ministry of Finance."
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on August 19, 2019, 10:07:04 pm
Ok but

But Japan has a big balance of payments surplus so it is not the same as the rest of us. They may be lending a lot to themselves but they are lending even more to other countries. Japan holds a lot of US debt but not the other way around.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on August 20, 2019, 06:53:02 am
I see what you are saying.

If you run an economy this way, does it matter though?

Seems like you are ignoring bond holders.

Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on August 20, 2019, 01:28:14 pm
I see what you are saying.

If you run an economy this way, does it matter though?

Seems like you are ignoring bond holders.

I don't know. I'm just pointing out that Japan is in a different situation than other countries. A problem with printing all this money is you can wind up with more people looking for places to invest it than spend it.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on August 20, 2019, 01:55:52 pm
I don't know. I'm just pointing out that Japan is in a different situation than other countries. A problem with printing all this money is you can wind up with more people looking for places to invest it than spend it.

Your point is quite relevant.  Japan can afford to do this... maybe it's akin to having an AmEx platinum card ?  ie. no limit ?  They don't give them to people with an over-extended Discover card !
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on August 20, 2019, 04:02:33 pm
Your point is quite relevant.  Japan can afford to do this... maybe it's akin to having an AmEx platinum card ?  ie. no limit ?  They don't give them to people with an over-extended Discover card !

Economics is scary, specially when people start justifying massive amounts of debt. Guess I'm old school, grew up thinking debt is bad and should be eliminated as soon as possible. Not always the best idea because it also stopped me from making some good investments over the years. Oh well, what to do?
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on August 31, 2019, 02:19:00 pm
Easy read:



And a great paragraph summarizing the mathematical fallacy that is 'trickle-down economics':
Quote
This is not just bad for those who suffer, although surely that is bad enough. It is bad for affluent Americans, too. When wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few, studies show, total consumption declines and investment lags. Corporations and wealthy households increasingly resemble Scrooge McDuck, sitting on piles of money they can’t use productively.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/24/opinion/sunday/economics-milton-friedman.html

Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on September 01, 2019, 11:02:49 pm
Post-Work society: Fully automated luxury communism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmQ-BZ3eWxM

Think it isn't happening ? 
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 02, 2019, 03:03:17 am
When the industrial revolution happened people thought we'd have a lot more leisure time.  Oops

Standard of living changes.  Also, you need the money to own the means of production for it to work for you.

Not working would also lead to social decay.  People need a reason to wake up in the morning, and something to strive towards.  I've met a lot of dopey retired people who do nothing all day, it's not good for the mind or body.  Some of them spend their time on message boards  :P

Times of plenty create soft people, as the saying goes.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on September 02, 2019, 06:51:52 am
1. When the industrial revolution happened people thought we'd have a lot more leisure time.  Oops

2. Standard of living changes.  Also, you need the money to own the means of production for it to work for you.

3. Not working would also lead to social decay.  People need a reason to wake up in the morning, and something to strive towards.  I've met a lot of dopey retired people who do nothing all day, it's not good for the mind or body.  Some of them spend their time on message boards  :P

Times of plenty create soft people, as the saying goes.

1. And why didn't we?  What changed in industrial tech to give us weekends?

2. I don't understand this sentence.

3. Working still would happen, but you would work less on commodity and goods producing labour and less on other things.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: the_squid on September 02, 2019, 12:06:06 pm
When the industrial revolution happened people thought we'd have a lot more leisure time.  Oops

No...   that wasn’t a train of thought in the 1700s with the working class, or those who owned the factories, during the industrial revolution.

Maybe you’re confusing the industrial revolution with automation.

ETA:   We definitely have a LOT more leisure time than they did in the 1700s during the industrial revolution...   your point is nonsensical.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: ?Impact on September 03, 2019, 12:38:48 pm
People need a reason to wake up in the morning, and something to strive towards.

Plenty of reasons other than wasting your time transferring wealth to the wealthy.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 03, 2019, 02:09:10 pm
Plenty of reasons other than wasting your time transferring wealth to the wealthy.

Then work for yourself.

Also, if you think that's the sum total of what "work" is, you'll become a lot more appreciative of "jobs" when they start to be eliminated by automation in mass quantities.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: the_squid on September 03, 2019, 02:19:27 pm
Then work for yourself.

Also, if you think that's the sum total of what "work" is, you'll become a lot more appreciative of "jobs" when they start to be eliminated by automation in mass quantities.

I’m very much looking forward to a jobless world....   
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Omni on September 03, 2019, 02:33:47 pm
Then work for yourself.

Also, if you think that's the sum total of what "work" is, you'll become a lot more appreciative of "jobs" when they start to be eliminated by automation in mass quantities.

It's important to look forward on this issue not backwards. Automation is here and expanding and who the hell wants to spend all day punching out license plates anyway. Let the machines do those jobs and then share the proceeds. Warren Buffet had an interesting concept on just that idea he outlined in an interview I heard a while back. Simply put, if GM for instance had robots punching out all its cars but nobody could buy them, what would be the point?
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on September 03, 2019, 02:45:41 pm
There are lots of simple answers.

For example, the people thank the capitalists for their assistance in getting us here, then nationalize the assets of GM.

It would be much cheaper for us to run it on a cost coverage basis. Other things to consider would be ending patent and trademark protection.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 03, 2019, 02:49:41 pm
I’m very much looking forward to a jobless world....

Well, that's assuming the people who own the AI are going to give you money to live on, which seems doubtful.

The only hope is governments taxing the wealthy and redistributing to the rest of us.  Universal basic income etc.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on September 03, 2019, 03:38:19 pm
No imagination, people.

Just nationalize the company.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 03, 2019, 04:20:44 pm
There are lots of simple answers.

For example, the people thank the capitalists for their assistance in getting us here, then nationalize the assets of GM.

It would be much cheaper for us to run it on a cost coverage basis.

If you nationalize then you get rid of competition, which lowers the incentive for innovation and efficiency.  Just tax the wealthy and the people who own the machines instead.

You're making the exact same (flawed) arguments communists & marxists were making after the industrial revolution.

Marxists also thought the industrial revolution (machines providing labour) + communism would free us to pursue other interests like arts and other leisure activities.  This utopia didn't happen, turns out people just became greedy with consumerism and wanted more and more "stuff".  So i predict when automation happens en masse people will just keep wanting more and more stuff (unfortunately).

If you don't learn from history you're doomed to repeat it.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 03, 2019, 04:26:02 pm
Let the machines do those jobs and then share the proceeds.

Again, this is the same argument Marxists were making in 19th century.  It didn't work out that way

I dunno, maybe with mass automation something will be different.  But we can't underestimate the greed of the average consumer, or the greed of the average share-holder.

Quote
Simply put, if GM for instance had robots punching out all its cars but nobody could buy them, what would be the point?

Yes i agree with this, this is essentially Fordism, where Henry Ford paid his workers more than he could have so they would buy the vehicles Ford was producing.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Omni on September 03, 2019, 04:27:06 pm
If you nationalize then you get rid of competition, which lowers the incentive for innovation and efficiency.  Just tax the wealthy and the people who own the machines instead.

You're making the exact same (flawed) arguments communists & marxists were making after the industrial revolution.

Marxists also thought the industrial revolution (machines providing labour) + communism would free us to pursue other interests like arts and other leisure activities.  This utopia didn't happen, turns out people just became greedy with consumerism and wanted more and more "stuff".  So i predict when automation happens en masse people will just keep wanting more and more stuff (unfortunately).

If you don't learn from history you're doomed to repeat it.

I sort of don't think Warren Buffet is a communist.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 03, 2019, 04:31:09 pm
I sort of don't think Warren Buffet is a communist.

Well no, but ironically, when looking at his peers, he's easily one of the most ethical big-time capitalists ever.

What exactly was his idea?  Need more details.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Omni on September 03, 2019, 04:42:52 pm
Well no, but ironically, when looking at his peers, he's easily one of the most ethical big-time capitalists ever.

What exactly was his idea?  Need more details.

The interview was some time ago and can't currently find a link to it. In essence he said there are many factory type jobs that could be taken over by robots so people wouldn't have to do mindless work of making widgets etc. Cashflow would need to be maintained so people could still buy the widgets but they could also expand their horizons beyond factory work.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on September 03, 2019, 05:58:51 pm
If you nationalize then you get rid of competition,

Why now ?

Quote
Marxists also thought the industrial revolution (machines providing labour) + communism would free us to pursue other interests like arts and other leisure activities.  This utopia didn't happen

Yeah, on the level of providing leisure time and goods it did better than what was there before.

Quote
If you don't learn from history you're doomed to repeat it.

It's time to revisit it.  Capitalism is subject to history too. 
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on September 03, 2019, 07:28:50 pm


Yeah, on the level of providing leisure time and goods it did better than what was there before.



If you call what is in China communist then yes but certainly not in Eastern Europe.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 03, 2019, 08:20:16 pm
The interview was some time ago and can't currently find a link to it. In essence he said there are many factory type jobs that could be taken over by robots so people wouldn't have to do mindless work of making widgets etc. Cashflow would need to be maintained so people could still buy the widgets but they could also expand their horizons beyond factory work.

Well I agree with that.  It's a good thing when boring manual labour can be done by robots...as long as people can find better work.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 03, 2019, 08:31:22 pm
Why now ?

Huh?

Quote
Yeah, on the level of providing leisure time and goods it did better than what was there before.

Well yes of course, but it didn't come close to the imagined utopia.  Hell, you now need two incomes and have to work harder and longer to maintain the middle-class standard of living compared to 40 years ago.  Yes we have nicer things than 40 years ago, but at what social costs?  The state & other strangers are now raising our children in daycares because both parents have to work to scrape by.  More free time my a.ss!

Much of what two incomes families has done is helped crank up the price of housing.  If people really want that house they like in that area they like, they're going to bid as much as they can possibly afford (and then some).  Price = Supply + demand.

Quote
It's time to revisit it.  Capitalism is subject to history too.

Sure, just don't repeat the same mistakes of the past.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on September 04, 2019, 05:41:54 am
If you call what is in China communist then yes but certainly not in Eastern Europe.

There is no Communism in Eastern Europe anymore.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on September 04, 2019, 05:43:44 am
Well I agree with that.  It's a good thing when boring manual labour can be done by robots...as long as people can find better work.

The one thing I like about Fully Automated Luxury Communism is that they fix how we think of jobs back to it being 'labour' ie. 'stuff we have to do'.

There is NO shortage of work.  What needs to happen is allocation towards what work needs to be done, and sharing of how much work to do.  For example, we could all benefit from a shorter work week now.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on September 04, 2019, 05:49:18 am
1. Huh?

2. Well yes of course, but it didn't come close to the imagined utopia. 

3. Hell, you now need two incomes and have to work harder and longer to maintain the middle-class standard of living compared to 40 years ago.  Yes we have nicer things than 40 years ago, but at what social costs?  The state & other strangers are now raising our children in daycares because both parents have to work to scrape by.  More free time my a.ss!

4. Much of what two incomes families has done is helped crank up the price of housing.  If people really want that house they like in that area they like, they're going to bid as much as they can possibly afford (and then some).  Price = Supply + demand.

Sure, just don't repeat the same mistakes of the past.
1. If I nationalize GM, I don't have to nationalize Chrysler.  If I nationalize both of them I don't have to merge them into both companies.  Or maybe I can, and they compete with other modes of transportation like mass transit for your transportation dollar.  Who competes head-on with CostCo ?  They are roughly unique in their field.

2. True enough.  But the competition (open liberal democracy) made it look bad compared to them.

3. Now you're making the case against laissez-faire capitalism.  Keep going ! :D

4. You're making the mistake of looking at a more recent phenomenon and attributing it to the system we have had post-WWII.    I would say we don't know exactly what is happening with the housing situation.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 04, 2019, 09:40:00 am
There is no Communism in Eastern Europe anymore.

No communism in China anymore either.  Just totalitarianism and capitalism.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 04, 2019, 10:10:51 am
1. If I nationalize GM, I don't have to nationalize Chrysler.  If I nationalize both of them I don't have to merge them into both companies.  Or maybe I can, and they compete with other modes of transportation like mass transit for your transportation dollar.

Ok well i guess you're a communist now, good luck with that.

Quote
Who competes head-on with CostCo ?  They are roughly unique in their field.

Every single other place that sells food, clothing, books, toys, electronics, and car batteries.

Quote
3. Now you're making the case against laissez-faire capitalism.  Keep going ! :D

Good because i'm not for laissez-faire capitalism. I've argued if automation makes businesses far more productive then tax the rich & their companies and redistribute the money.

Quote
4. You're making the mistake of looking at a more recent phenomenon and attributing it to the system we have had post-WWII.    I would say we don't know exactly what is happening with the housing situation.

Rising housing costs = foreign investment, cheap mortgage credit post-2008 recession, continued increase in two-income families, domestic housing speculation (every other person has a damn investment property they're renting out), population growth + large-scale immigration where the vast majority are moving to large urban cities etc.  In short, mishandled or a lack of government regulation.

That doesn't mean we need to nationalize the housing industry & banks. It means we need better government regulation on the industry that prioritizes regular people over maximizing profits of developers, banks, investors etc.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on September 04, 2019, 12:45:17 pm
There is no Communism in Eastern Europe anymore.

Exactly. Eastern European countries were better off both before and after communism.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on September 04, 2019, 12:46:46 pm
No communism in China anymore either.  Just totalitarianism and capitalism.

Pretty much. The Chinese excel at capitalism.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 04, 2019, 01:36:36 pm
Pretty much. The Chinese excel at capitalism.

A billion wage-slaves run by their greedy/crooked masters seem to be doing well.

Beats subsistence farming i guess.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on September 04, 2019, 02:16:00 pm
A billion wage-slaves run by their greedy/crooked masters seem to be doing well.

Beats subsistence farming i guess.
Their cities are also full of mom and pop type business'.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 04, 2019, 03:28:45 pm
Their cities are also full of mom and pop type business'.

Their economy isn't exploding because of domestic consumption...yet.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Omni on September 04, 2019, 03:38:21 pm
Their economy isn't exploding because of domestic consumption...yet.

Trump's stupid trade war will have both economies IMploding if he carries on.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on September 05, 2019, 05:34:42 am
1. Ok well i guess you're a communist now, good luck with that.

2. Every single other place that sells food, clothing, books, toys, electronics, and car batteries.

3. Good because i'm not for laissez-faire capitalism. I've argued if automation makes businesses far more productive then tax the rich & their companies and redistribute the money.

4. Rising housing costs = foreign investment, cheap mortgage credit post-2008 recession, continued increase in two-income families, domestic housing speculation (every other person has a damn investment property they're renting out), population growth + large-scale immigration where the vast majority are moving to large urban cities etc.  In short, mishandled or a lack of government regulation.

5. That doesn't mean we need to nationalize the housing industry & banks. It means we need better government regulation on the industry that prioritizes regular people over maximizing profits of developers, banks, investors etc.

1. Ha.  No, please don't call me that because I elaborated on nationalization.
2. True - just as 'nationalized' auto companies would compete with broad modes of transportation like subways.
3. Let's revisit why we allow there to be 'the rich' - do you remember ?
4. This came out of the discussion of leisure time, and presumably how rising housing costs are forcing us to work too much.
5. I'm a liberal like you, but at a certain point systems change.  Will we still have money in 10,000 years ?  I think we're more likely going to be like Star Trek - ie. just collaborating on projects.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on September 05, 2019, 05:35:35 am
A billion wage-slaves run by their greedy/crooked masters seem to be doing well.

Beats subsistence farming i guess.

Well... they seem to be better to their middle classes than we are.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on October 06, 2019, 07:31:37 am
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/labor-departments-new-report-isnt-so-gloomy/599491/

Wow.  Nobody likes that.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on November 25, 2019, 07:33:29 pm
Wow.

https://www.piie.com/experts/peterson-perspectives/trade-talks-111-trade-policy-under-trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Vaughn

Stephen Vaughn talks about US Free Trade.  1 1/2 hours, not for the faint of heart.  He's smart so he almost succeeds at making the American position sound reasonable, but not quite.  This much for sure, the US seems ready to blow up world trade.

The thing I can't get my head around is actually sounds RIGHT about trade policy.  In the 1990s they effectively took trade policy out of the realm of electoral politics.  And the reasons kind of seem sound.  But also not.

1) People can't be expected to understand trade policy and will knee-jerk to protectionism every time.  So why trust them with voting on it ?
2) On the other hand, it's their policy.  They will never accept globalism if it's foisted on them.

The hosts do a good job of pointing out that for 2) there won't be any turnaround for the workers even if they reject globalism.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on December 10, 2019, 08:38:05 am
Robert Skidelsky's Money and Government: The Past and Future of Economics - Reviewed.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/12/05/against-economics/

The thesis seems to be that there exists a magic wand that can create money when waved.  If you can read this meaty review and comment intelligently please do.
I will only say that I find the thesis curious, and wonder if we're already there.  But then again, with all the mentions of QE and 2008 the article doesn't mention the European crises, ie. Greece etc.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on January 16, 2020, 02:00:48 pm
Global debt is MASSIVE

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/economy/global-debt-record/index.html

The world's already huge debt load smashed the record for the highest debt-to-GDP ratio before 2019 was even over.

In fact, it broke that record in the first nine months of last year. Global debt, which comprises borrowings from households, governments and companies, grew by $9 trillion to nearly $253 trillion during that period, according to the Institute of International Finance.


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/15/global-debt-surged-to-a-record-250-trillion-in-the-first-half-of-2019-led-by-the-us-and-china.html

Rising debt across the world has been a big concern for investors and has also been flagged as the next breaking point by a number of economists.

Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on January 16, 2020, 03:16:31 pm
Scary, do I dump my corporate bonds, not that I have many. How about the shares of the companies who are issuing a lot of bonds? Hope I don't have many. When you buy a GIC, where does the money actually go? My advisor says if they start defaulting, the world will be having much bigger problems. So many questions, just hope I am getting good advice.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on January 16, 2020, 07:21:42 pm
I"m talking to my guy on Saturday.  At this point I'm making more from my RRSPs than my job this year and I don't have that much invested.  I feel like with the election this year something is going to burst...
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on January 16, 2020, 08:21:22 pm
Economic growth built on mountains of debt is phantom growth.  Sounds like a bubble has formed.  Nobody actually owns anything.  Our economies are much weaker than we think if we have to borrow money just to maintain status quo growth.  Don't be impressed or jealous by your neighbour who drives the BMW, they don't own it anyways.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on January 16, 2020, 08:46:49 pm
Some days literally dozens of cars drive by me that I could never afford before one drives by me that I could.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on January 16, 2020, 08:53:12 pm
Some days literally dozens of cars drive by me that I could never afford before one drives by me that I could.


I bought an Audi and paid cash but was 67 before I felt I could afford one.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on January 16, 2020, 10:00:29 pm
I keep a buffer of money in case my car goes belly up and i need a new one so i can pay cash for it.  Meanwhile that money is making me money.  I don't like financing cars and losing money.  Leasing can have its place in the right situation.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Omni on January 16, 2020, 10:11:15 pm
I keep a buffer of money in case my car goes belly up and i need a new one so i can pay cash for it.  Meanwhile that money is making me money.  I don't like financing cars and losing money.  Leasing can have its place in the right situation.

Leasing only really works if the vehicle is for company use so you can write off the cost as well as depreciation. Otherwise buy it outright.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on January 17, 2020, 06:47:04 am
I keep a buffer of money in case my car goes belly up and i need a new one so i can pay cash for it.  Meanwhile that money is making me money.  I don't like financing cars and losing money.  Leasing can have its place in the right situation.

Unless I had $2M in cash I wouldn't feel that I could afford a new Audi.

But you inspired a new thread idea..
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on January 17, 2020, 11:49:45 am
Unless I had $2M in cash I wouldn't feel that I could afford a new Audi.

But you inspired a new thread idea..

Well I don’t have $2M in cash. It also depends on the Audi. They start in the thirties and go well over two hundred.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: the_squid on January 17, 2020, 10:23:26 pm
Well I don’t have $2M in cash. It also depends on the Audi. They start in the thirties and go well over two hundred.

A buddy has an A3 and his wifey has a TT.   Very cool cars.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on January 17, 2020, 11:18:40 pm
A buddy has an A3 and his wifey has a TT.   Very cool cars.

Have you looked at the RS3? 400 HP, same with the RSTT.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: the_squid on January 19, 2020, 01:09:10 pm
Have you looked at the RS3? 400 HP, same with the RSTT.


Oh yes....  I’ve drooled over those. 

(https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fjimresnick%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F07%2F2018-Audi-TT-RS.-RS-3-2-1200x800.jpg)
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on February 15, 2020, 06:06:42 am
Boris Johnson with the Donald Trump approach to debt..

But with a twist

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1228592352421449728?s=19
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: ?Impact on February 15, 2020, 10:20:33 am
Global debt is MASSIVE

The world's already huge debt load smashed the record for the highest debt-to-GDP ratio before 2019 was even over.
In fact, it broke that record in the first nine months of last year. Global debt, which comprises borrowings from households, governments and companies, grew by $9 trillion to nearly $253 trillion during that period, according to the Institute of International Finance.


Rising debt across the world has been a big concern for investors and has also been flagged as the next breaking point by a number of economists.

Debt is artificial, a creation of economists. This is their failure. Time to rebuild the world, and put the economists and lawyers at the bottom of the ocean. if the bankers want to collect, they are free to join them.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on February 15, 2020, 01:39:18 pm
So that's something you can do once.  After that you would not be trusted.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on February 15, 2020, 01:55:35 pm
Debt is artificial, a creation of economists. This is their failure. Time to rebuild the world, and put the economists and lawyers at the bottom of the ocean. if the bankers want to collect, they are free to join them.

If debt is artificial, so is the nation’s currency. Default on your debt and your money, pensions and  any other monetary benefits you get from government are worth nothing.
 You are starting to sound like Trump.

Right now we spend 25% more servicing federal debt than we do on defence.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 16, 2020, 02:05:47 am
Debt is artificial, a creation of economists. This is their failure. Time to rebuild the world, and put the economists and lawyers at the bottom of the ocean. if the bankers want to collect, they are free to join them.

Sure, don't put any blame on the people who choose to borrow.  Economists and bankers put guns to their heads.

Bought some fancy clothes yesterday and charged on my Visa cuz I don't actually have the money, that's the banks fault.

Shot my wife in the face, but they arrested the store that sold me the gun, it's their fault.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: ?Impact on February 16, 2020, 01:15:17 pm
Sure, don't put any blame on the people who choose to borrow.

Where the frig did you pull that accusation from?
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: kimmy on February 28, 2020, 02:02:07 am
Debt is artificial, a creation of economists. This is their failure. Time to rebuild the world, and put the economists and lawyers at the bottom of the ocean. if the bankers want to collect, they are free to join them.

Obviously many people use credit foolishly.  But have you really thought about a society without borrowing?  No student loans? No mortgages?  To me it seems like that would do more to create barriers between the wealthy and the poor than anything else. If you wanted to make a permanent underclass, keeping people from going to college and keeping people from building equity by owning a home seem like a good start.

 -k
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: ?Impact on February 28, 2020, 02:34:54 pm
But have you really thought about a society without borrowing?  No student loans? No mortgages?

No student loans is a good thing. Our society benefits from an educated workforce, education should be provided to those who maintain standards (e.g. grades).

Mortgages are mostly needed because we have inflated housing prices due to speculation.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on February 28, 2020, 06:16:21 pm
No student loans is a good thing. Our society benefits from an educated workforce, education should be provided to those who maintain standards (e.g. grades).
 

This is true, but 'education' is pursued as a gateway to a middle class lifestyle.  I think education should be very reasonable, but geared to what is needed.  Education is an industry with its own goals, which isn't useful AFAICS.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 28, 2020, 06:46:28 pm
Where the frig did you pull that accusation from?

Economists don't force people to borrow, and they didn't create debt, though they may support it.

We are all ultimately responsible for our personal finances and debt, with few extraordinary exceptions.  People can only change their behaviour when they realize they are responsible for it, instead of only blaming others.  The only person who can sign on the dotted line is you.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 28, 2020, 06:48:40 pm
Obviously many people use credit foolishly.  But have you really thought about a society without borrowing?  No student loans? No mortgages?  To me it seems like that would do more to create barriers between the wealthy and the poor than anything else. If you wanted to make a permanent underclass, keeping people from going to college and keeping people from building equity by owning a home seem like a good start.

 -k

Credit is a tool like any other.  People can use tools poorly or use them well, it's up to them.  A bad deal is a bad deal, and a good deal is a good deal.  We must all choose wisely and always read the fine print.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 28, 2020, 06:51:47 pm
No student loans is a good thing. Our society benefits from an educated workforce, education should be provided to those who maintain standards (e.g. grades).

Mortgages are mostly needed because we have inflated housing prices due to speculation.

I'm glad we live in a country where education is attainable by anyone, and tuition and student loans are reasonable.  Unlike the US, where the student debt can be crippling and is a money-making industry like any other.

I agree with you about inflated housing prices.  Speculation is a big factor, among others.  We need more regulation in real estate, big-time.  That becomes hard when banks, big developers etc are so politically powerful.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on February 28, 2020, 07:04:59 pm
I agree with you about inflated housing prices.  Speculation is a big factor, among others.  We need more regulation in real estate, big-time.  That becomes hard when banks, big developers etc are so politically powerful.

The thing is - the inflating bubble is really good for the economy and makes middle-class homeowners feel better about having no savings.  I suspect their back pocket plan is "sell the house, pay off the visa and move to Nepean" or Kingston.

It's all going to crash very soon.  There can't be this much actual money in the world to drive these things.  Somebody is in debt, and in trouble...
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on February 28, 2020, 07:59:59 pm
The thing is - the inflating bubble is really good for the economy and makes middle-class homeowners feel better about having no savings.  I suspect their back pocket plan is "sell the house, pay off the visa and move to Nepean" or Kingston.

It's all going to crash very soon.  There can't be this much actual money in the world to drive these things.  Somebody is in debt, and in trouble...

I don't know. With interest rates so low there has to be a lot of money out there looking for a place to be productive.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on February 28, 2020, 09:15:18 pm
weakAndy/CPC keep nattering on about a, 'broken Canada'... but never bring the receipts... never properly speak to the metrics! Like, for example, per StatsCan - foreign investment in Canada being up 19% in 2019 (over 2018's figures):

(https://i.imgur.com/O4EnQnc.png)
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 28, 2020, 09:47:30 pm
The thing is - the inflating bubble is really good for the economy and makes middle-class homeowners feel better about having no savings.  I suspect their back pocket plan is "sell the house, pay off the visa and move to Nepean" or Kingston.

It's all going to crash very soon.  There can't be this much actual money in the world to drive these things.  Somebody is in debt, and in trouble...

The market always corrects itself.  They've been waiting for a correction for a decade+, hasn't happened.  We'll see.  Every other person has an investment property in Toronto and Vancouver.  Over-speculation virtually always drives bubbles/recessions, been going on for centuries.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on February 29, 2020, 02:03:53 pm
weakAndy/CPC keep nattering on about a, 'broken Canada'... but never bring the receipts... never properly speak to the metrics! Like, for example, per StatsCan - foreign investment in Canada being up 19% in 2019 (over 2018's figures):

(https://i.imgur.com/O4EnQnc.png)

waldo... do you have more? Why yes - yes I do!

(https://i.imgur.com/TysgEOu.png)
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on February 29, 2020, 03:15:24 pm
It would be useful for me in anti-anti-Trudeau posts to have a useable link, Waldo - do you have one.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on March 01, 2020, 12:47:46 pm
It would be useful for me in anti-anti-Trudeau posts to have a useable link, Waldo - do you have one.

oh, we're talking again, are we! RawData @ https://doi.org/10.25318/3610002501-eng ... now pissOffAgain!  ;D
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on March 01, 2020, 01:22:21 pm
Huh ?  ??? Sorry you aren't allowed to be mad at me.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on March 08, 2020, 06:18:29 pm
per UBC Econ Prof Kevin Milligan: Don’t Worry About the Federal Deficit --- Politicians often argue that government debt will cause hardship for future generations. They’re wrong (https://thewalrus.ca/democracy-dont-worry-about-the-federal-deficit/)

(https://i.imgur.com/ITNPld2.png)

Quote
But won’t taxes have to rise? At the risk of belabouring the analogy: if our children are saddled with the mortgage we take out now, won’t they need to raise funds to pay it down? No. When debt growth is modest and interest rates are low, the economy grows faster than the cost of servicing debt. This (though politicians would have you believe otherwise) is Economics 101: what matters is not the absolute size of the debt but its size relative to the country’s economy overall. As with the financing of your home, there isn’t such a thing as a “big” or “small” mortgage per se—it entirely depends on your income. Economists use the debt-to-GDP ratio, which measures a country’s debt burden relative to its national income, to assess this for Canada’s economy. When we think of the fiscal—or moral—consequences of our debt policy on the next generation, the debt-to-GDP ratio is the right guidepost. And a responsible fiscal policy ensures that the debt-to-GDP ratio does not grow, not that we have no debt, or run no deficits, at all.
.
Over the five years from 2009 to 2014, Canada added $158 billion to the federal debt—which sounds like a lot, but our economy’s size was closing in on $2 trillion at the time, so the crucial debt-to-GDP ratio didn’t move much. We did add $71 billion of debt over the last four years—but the debt-to-GDP ratio actually fell by 1 percent over that period, since the economy grew more quickly than the debt did. Debts rise and fall, but there is no inexorable march to crisis that is unleashed by allowing some degree of discretion on deficit spending or the debt that ensues. We should just accept that the debt battle has been won and move on.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 08, 2020, 06:29:42 pm
per UBC Econ Prof Kevin Milligan: Don’t Worry About the Federal Deficit --- Politicians often argue that government debt will cause hardship for future generations. They’re wrong (https://thewalrus.ca/democracy-dont-worry-about-the-federal-deficit/)

(https://i.imgur.com/ITNPld2.png)

Which is bullshit. As I have already stated, 26 billion in revenues go to service the federal debt each year. Even if that stays the same and we don't borrow any more, by the time they are 80, a child born today will see over two trillion in federal revenues (tax dollars) go to pay interest on money that was borrowed and spent before they were born. If you don't think that is inheriting a financial burden, you and the professor have rocks in you heads. That is simple arithmetic and what this debt to GDP bullshit is really about.

No fiscal obligation maybe but obviously the borrow and spenders without paying it back see no moral obligation either. The professor may have a problem with sticking his kids with his personal debt but he has no issue with sticking them with a ton of government debt to service for the rest of their lives.

That 26 billion deficit the government was forecasting for this year will seem like peanuts after protestors and Covid-19 get finished trashing the economy.

Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on March 08, 2020, 07:13:40 pm
Which is bullshit.

well... there's you... and then there's the Econ Prof (and his 144 published papers as lead/co-author)

(https://i.imgur.com/rnoSJ6O.jpg)


Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 08, 2020, 07:45:02 pm
well... there's you... and then there's the Econ Prof (and his 144 published papers as lead/co-author)

(https://i.imgur.com/rnoSJ6O.jpg)

There is me that can use a calculator. We spend 26 billion a year servicing federal debt. 26 X 80 = 2,080. That's $2,080 billion spent in interest on money that was borrowed and spent before they were born. All he is saying is future generations will be able to afford the payments. Fiscal reality maybe, but morally bankrupt.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 08, 2020, 08:01:29 pm
Why do these debt/deficit proponents only point to the same economist?  Is Kevin the only economist in Canada?

What really needs to be shown is if it's better for Canada's economy in the long-term to run deficits and pay the interest payments on that debt, or if it's better to tax Canadians more to balance the budget and save on the interest payments, or if it's better to cut some of this spending to achieve a balanced budget, or if it's better to actually run a surplus and pay down our debt?

And under what economic conditions for any of these scenarios?

Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: ?Impact on March 09, 2020, 08:50:40 am
As I have already stated, 26 billion in revenues go to service the federal debt each year. Even if that stays the same and we don't borrow any more, by the time they are 80, a child born today will see over two trillion in federal revenues (tax dollars) go to pay interest on money that was borrowed and spent before they were born.

$26 billion today is more than the federal debt stood when I was born. We also have to consider that the GDP of Canada was $41 billion at the time, so inflation must be taken into account. The interest on the money may increase over time, but inflation cannot be ignored. That $2 trillion in 80 years has no comparison to $2 trillion today.

You are right that money is being spent servicing debt since before people were born, such has always been the case. I did the calculation a few years ago, and if we had no debt in the year I was born, we would have no debt today. While there were a few years where our deficit was larger than the cost of servicing the debt, most years it has been smaller.

We spend 26 billion a year servicing federal debt. 26 X 80 = 2,080. That's $2,080 billion spent in interest on money that was borrowed and spent before they were born. All he is saying is future generations will be able to afford the payments. Fiscal reality maybe, but morally bankrupt.

Morally bankrupt if future generations do not inherit the benefits our society has created. We all benefit to some extent on the investments of previous generations, the real question is to what level.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2020, 09:11:47 am
$26 billion today is more than the federal debt stood when I was born. We also have to consider that the GDP of Canada was $41 billion at the time, so inflation must be taken into account. The interest on the money may increase over time, but inflation cannot be ignored. That $2 trillion in 80 years has no comparison to $2 trillion today.

Morally bankrupt if future generations do not inherit the benefits our society has created. We all benefit to some extent on the investments of previous generations, the real question is to what level.

You are counting on infinite growth and inflation to render your debt less costly.

What benefits? They end up paying for services others consumed and infrastructure that no longer exists.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: ?Impact on March 09, 2020, 09:53:10 am
You are counting on infinite growth and inflation to render your debt less costly.

Your $2 trillion estimate also relies on the exact same inflation driven growth.

What benefits? They end up paying for services others consumed and infrastructure that no longer exists.

I agree that services should never be financed, at least not for longer than say 12 months. Yes, infrastructure ages. That does not mean that they are still paying for that specific infrastructure. Am I still paying for WWII?
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2020, 10:21:49 am
Your $2 trillion estimate also relies on the exact same inflation driven growth.

I agree that services should never be financed, at least not for longer than say 12 months. Yes, infrastructure ages. That does not mean that they are still paying for that specific infrastructure. Am I still paying for WWII?

My two trillion is based on the annual interest we pay today times 80 years. 26 X 80 = 2080. Inflation has nothing to do with it.

Of course you are, if you never pay off the principal, you pay interest on it forever and so are your descendants long after it an you are gone.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on March 09, 2020, 10:32:40 am
Why do these debt/deficit proponents only point to the same economist?  Is Kevin the only economist in Canada?

What really needs to be shown is if it's better for Canada's economy in the long-term to run deficits and pay the interest payments on that debt, or if it's better to tax Canadians more to balance the budget and save on the interest payments, or if it's better to cut some of this spending to achieve a balanced budget, or if it's better to actually run a surplus and pay down our debt?

oh snap! Ya, he's the only guy... out there on a ledge all by himself - not ever, as member wilber drones on, "thinking of the kids, thinking of the kids"!  ;D

perhaps you should tout your favoured Conservative aligned economists that forego their own concerns over deficits/debt in favour of reduced taxation... and the grand (and disproved) posit that reduced taxation spurs the economy and creates jobs, jobs, jobs!
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2020, 10:47:22 am
oh snap! Ya, he's the only guy... out there on a ledge all by himself - not ever, as member wilber drones on, "thinking of the kids, thinking of the kids"!  ;D

perhaps you should tout your favoured Conservative aligned economists that forego their own concerns over deficits/debt in favour of reduced taxation... and the grand (and disproved) posit that reduced taxation spurs the economy and creates jobs, jobs, jobs!

People who borrow and borrow leaving the debt for future generations are thinking of no one but themselves. If you have to borrow every year just to pay your bills, you are living beyond your means. It isn't complicated.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on March 09, 2020, 11:05:45 am
People who borrow and borrow leaving the debt for future generations are thinking of no one but themselves. If you have to borrow every year just to pay your bills, you are living beyond your means. It isn't complicated.

try reading the linked article this time - it isn't complicated!

per UBC Econ Prof Kevin Milligan: Don’t Worry About the Federal Deficit --- Politicians often argue that government debt will cause hardship for future generations. They’re wrong (https://thewalrus.ca/democracy-dont-worry-about-the-federal-deficit/)

(https://i.imgur.com/ITNPld2.png)

Quote
But won’t taxes have to rise? At the risk of belabouring the analogy: if our children are saddled with the mortgage we take out now, won’t they need to raise funds to pay it down? No. When debt growth is modest and interest rates are low, the economy grows faster than the cost of servicing debt. This (though politicians would have you believe otherwise) is Economics 101: what matters is not the absolute size of the debt but its size relative to the country’s economy overall. As with the financing of your home, there isn’t such a thing as a “big” or “small” mortgage per se—it entirely depends on your income. Economists use the debt-to-GDP ratio, which measures a country’s debt burden relative to its national income, to assess this for Canada’s economy. When we think of the fiscal—or moral—consequences of our debt policy on the next generation, the debt-to-GDP ratio is the right guidepost. And a responsible fiscal policy ensures that the debt-to-GDP ratio does not grow, not that we have no debt, or run no deficits, at all.
.
Over the five years from 2009 to 2014, Canada added $158 billion to the federal debt—which sounds like a lot, but our economy’s size was closing in on $2 trillion at the time, so the crucial debt-to-GDP ratio didn’t move much. We did add $71 billion of debt over the last four years—but the debt-to-GDP ratio actually fell by 1 percent over that period, since the economy grew more quickly than the debt did. Debts rise and fall, but there is no inexorable march to crisis that is unleashed by allowing some degree of discretion on deficit spending or the debt that ensues. We should just accept that the debt battle has been won and move on.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: ?Impact on March 09, 2020, 11:10:58 am
My two trillion is based on the annual interest we pay today times 80 years. 26 X 80 = 2080. Inflation has nothing to do with it.

Inflation has everything to do with it. We don't borrow money at a fixed rate with an infinite period. We were paying $50 billion in 1995, and $23 billion in 2019 even though the accumulated deficit was lower then.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2020, 11:15:25 am
try reading the linked article this time - it isn't complicated!

I read it. It says the government has no fiscal obligation. I agree. He doesn't say it has no moral obligation to not stick future generations with the burden of debt accumulated today. Apparently you feel there is no such obligation. Fuck em, I got mine. I also have no doubt the same people who are critical of Harper for running up the debt after the 2008 financial meltdown will be justifying Trudeau doing the same thing in the wake of this year's blockades and Covid-19.

Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2020, 11:28:27 am
Inflation has everything to do with it. We don't borrow money at a fixed rate with an infinite period. We were paying $50 billion in 1995, and $23 billion in 2019 even though the accumulated deficit was lower then.


Interest rates were more than quadruple today's in 1995. Do you think they will stay this low forever? Can you guarantee that? Chretien and Martin were slashing spending and paying down debt because our credit rating was going in the tank. We are a can we afford the payments today culture and have learned nothing from history.

I'll say it one more time. I'm not saying we should never borrow money, I'm saying we shouldn't do it with the intention of never paying it back. Which is what we are doing
now and what this debt to GDP con is all about.

There is a real disconnect here. On the one hand we are being told we can't be so wasteful and excess consumption is destroying our world and on the other hand, many of the same people are saying we can continue to borrow and not pay it back because infinite growth will allow us to make the payments. Non renewable resources are finite and we are already consuming renewable resources at a rate greater than the planet can replace them. It defies logic.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on March 09, 2020, 12:06:30 pm
I read it. It says the government has no fiscal obligation. I agree. He doesn't say it has no moral obligation to not stick future generations with the burden of debt accumulated today. Apparently you feel there is no such obligation. **** em, I got mine.

it says nothing of the kind! Read it again...
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on March 09, 2020, 12:13:11 pm
"In the long run, fiscal policy is sustainable if it stabilizes the ratio of debt to GDP" --- says the guy who won some kind of Nobel thingee for Economics! (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/07/opinion/the-case-for-permanent-stimulus-wonkish.html)

(https://i.imgur.com/lDFIXmB.png)
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2020, 12:17:49 pm
it says nothing of the kind! Read it again...

Maybe you should read it, particularly the last line.

He is wrong about that as well. In the early nineties the federal government ran into a fiscal obligation it couldn't ignore. His field may be economics but history definitely isn't.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2020, 12:31:32 pm
"In the long run, fiscal policy is sustainable if it stabilizes the ratio of debt to GDP" --- says the guy who won some kind of Nobel thingee for Economics! (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/07/opinion/the-case-for-permanent-stimulus-wonkish.html)

(https://i.imgur.com/lDFIXmB.png)

Read it yourself, he is talking about a "hypothetical economy"  and the "arithmetic of debt in a low interest economy".

Debt to GDP will take a real hit this year as blockades and Covid-19 will ramp up deficits while kicking the crap out of GDP. If interest rates were 5% we would be getting crushed.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on March 09, 2020, 12:51:01 pm
... "hypothetical economy"  and the "arithmetic of debt in a low interest economy".

to feed your debtHawkishness, what hypotheticals are you presuming upon? Or do you just have a... feeling?  ;D

Q/A with that Nobel guy:
(https://i.imgur.com/EQPMkpf.png)
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2020, 12:58:32 pm
to feed your debtHawkishness, what hypotheticals are you presuming upon? Or do you just have a... feeling?  ;D

Q/A with that Nobel guy:
(https://i.imgur.com/EQPMkpf.png)

He used the words "hypothetical economy" numb nuts. Don't you read what you post?

Again, none of this works without infinite growth. Do you think infinite growth is a realistic expectation?
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: ?Impact on March 09, 2020, 01:06:06 pm
I'm not saying we should never borrow money, I'm saying we shouldn't do it with the intention of never paying it back. Which is what we are doing
now and what this debt to GDP con is all about.

The target of slowly reducing the debt:GDP ratio is not a con, it is responsible fiscal policy. The con is selling off revenue producing assets at firesale prices to produce a fake surplus.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2020, 01:14:34 pm
The target of slowly reducing the debt:GDP ratio is not a con, it is responsible fiscal policy. The con is selling off revenue producing assets at firesale prices to produce a fake surplus.

Who is talking about selling off assets? It's funny you bring that up because when people talk about net debt to GDP, that is exactly what they are talking about, debt after government sells off all its assets.

Again, you are depending on infinite growth in order to support infinite borrowing. Do you think infinite growth is a reasonable expectation on a planet where it is uncertain the present economy is sustainable in the long term, let alone infinite growth?
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2020, 01:21:18 pm
I remember having a similar argument in the early eighties with some guys in a bar at the old YYZ Skyline hotel. They were going on about the benefits of more debt when PET was ramping up borrowing and I was against. Ten years later Chretien and Martin where having to slash and burn because the federal government was on the verge of being cut off by lenders. We were no longer seen as a secure place to invest in government debt. Some things don't change.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Omni on March 09, 2020, 01:43:56 pm
The target of slowly reducing the debt:GDP ratio is not a con, it is responsible fiscal policy. The con is selling off revenue producing assets at firesale prices to produce a fake surplus.

You mean like the Harper/Oliver approach to finally produce one "surplus" amid 9 deficits?
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on March 09, 2020, 01:46:56 pm
to feed your debtHawkishness, what hypotheticals are you presuming upon? Or do you just have a... feeling?  ;D

Q/A with that Nobel guy:
(https://i.imgur.com/EQPMkpf.png)
He used the words "hypothetical economy" numb nuts. Don't you read what you post?

is it representative of today, or not? Asking you about your "feeling" was intended to solicit what frames your perpetual chicken-little... feeling; one that doesn't seem to factor interest rates, growth, GDP, the ratio of debt-to-GDP, etc.. - a "feeling" that postures around forced/fake morality that always aims to "guilt" over future generations of, "the kids, the kids"!
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: ?Impact on March 09, 2020, 02:05:09 pm
Do you think infinite growth is a reasonable expectation on a planet where it is uncertain the present economy is sustainable in the long term, let alone infinite growth?

There are many factors that influence growth: goods, services, inflation

Since 80% of the economy is services, and inflation (devaluation) shows no sign of changing direction, Yes I think growth is a reasonable expectation.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2020, 04:14:44 pm
There are many factors that influence growth: goods, services, inflation

Since 80% of the economy is services, and inflation (devaluation) shows no sign of changing direction, Yes I think growth is a reasonable expectation.

So what do you think these services are for? Inflation isn’t growth, it is devaluation.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 09, 2020, 04:46:03 pm
Again, you are depending on infinite growth in order to support infinite borrowing. Do you think infinite growth is a reasonable expectation on a planet where it is uncertain the present economy is sustainable in the long term, let alone infinite growth?

If there is no infinite growth the entire world economy collapses.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2020, 05:03:16 pm
If there is no infinite growth the entire world economy collapses.

DOW down 2200. TSX down 1600 today. Biggest drop since 87 crash. Glad only about 30% of my portfolio is equities. Wish it was less right now.

How can there be infinite growth on a finite planet?
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: ?Impact on March 09, 2020, 05:13:53 pm
How can there be infinite growth on a finite planet?

Our economy is disjoint from our environment. I have been hammering that point for years, but everyone focuses on dollars and not doughnuts (donuts).
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 09, 2020, 05:20:23 pm
DOW down 2200. TSX down 1600 today. Biggest drop since 87 crash. Glad only about 30% of my portfolio is equities. Wish it was less right now.

How can there be infinite growth on a finite planet?

Infinite universe.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2020, 05:32:06 pm
Our economy is disjoint from our environment. I have been hammering that point for years, but everyone focuses on dollars and not doughnuts (donuts).

Yes it is. Save us from “environmentalists”  who think we can have unlimited growth.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on March 09, 2020, 08:54:37 pm
That's a weird statement.  Explain ?
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2020, 09:37:16 pm
That's a weird statement.  Explain ?
What's weird about it. We have people telling us that we are destroying the environment with over consumption while they tell us we can keep borrowing because growth is infinite because people will consume even more.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on March 09, 2020, 09:54:56 pm
Which side are YOU on then?
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 09, 2020, 09:57:24 pm
Which side are YOU on then?

The two aren't compatible, it isn't a matter of being on one side or the other.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on March 10, 2020, 05:14:11 am
How can there be infinite growth on a finite planet?

This is why I'm confused: aren't you a centre-conservative ?

Growth means growth of the "economy", which is a man-made idea of the movement of goods and services of "value".

So if I come up with a wheelbarrow that is easier to use, with smaller tires, I have created something I can trade for more goods and services.  The economy has now "grown" even though I am using something with less material.  New services can grow the economy and not degrade the planet.  And if humanity is to survive, we eventually have to leave the planet anyway.

Have some imagination.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2020, 10:30:16 am
This is why I'm confused: aren't you a centre-conservative ?

Growth means growth of the "economy", which is a man-made idea of the movement of goods and services of "value".

So if I come up with a wheelbarrow that is easier to use, with smaller tires, I have created something I can trade for more goods and services.  The economy has now "grown" even though I am using something with less material.  New services can grow the economy and not degrade the planet.  And if humanity is to survive, we eventually have to leave the planet anyway.

Have some imagination.

My imagination is just different from yours. Optimism can be a good thing but not always justified.

BTW. Wheelbarrows with smaller tires don't work worth a damn. Get one with the biggest tire you can find.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2020, 02:47:38 pm
I don't think anyone would argue that the projected 26 billion federal deficit for this year is now out the window. Maybe we aren't that far from an unsustainable financial situation after all.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-19-coronavirus-recession-oil-1.5491122
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on March 10, 2020, 03:06:32 pm
My imagination is just different from yours. Optimism can be a good thing but not always justified.

BTW. Wheelbarrows with smaller tires don't work worth a damn. Get one with the biggest tire you can find.

Follow my analogy.  The point is that growth is not synonymous with 'consumer more material from the earth'.

Amazon is growing while they reduce packaging size....
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on March 10, 2020, 03:07:07 pm
I don't think anyone would argue that the projected 26 billion federal deficit for this year is now out the window. Maybe we aren't that far from an unsustainable financial situation after all.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-19-coronavirus-recession-oil-1.5491122

True enough but I also think we are better shape than others.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2020, 04:12:11 pm
True enough but I also think we are better shape than others.

Said the last one to drown.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 10, 2020, 05:24:09 pm
Follow my analogy.  The point is that growth is not synonymous with 'consumer more material from the earth'.

Amazon is growing while they reduce packaging size....

But Amazon is still using more total packaging no matter the size, that's the point.  Unless all growth is using 100% recycled and 100% non-fossil fuel energy then growth is not sustainable longterm unless we do so or acquire more resources away from earth.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2020, 06:16:35 pm
Follow my analogy.  The point is that growth is not synonymous with 'consumer more material from the earth'.

Amazon is growing while they reduce packaging size....

Delivering every parcel individually with fossil fuel powered vehicles. Now we have "growth" with things like Skip the Dishes and other delivered services that used to be done by people in their homes without driving anywhere.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2020, 06:22:41 pm
Delivering every parcel individually with fossil fuel powered vehicles. Now we have "growth" with things like Skip the Dishes and other delivered services that used to be done by people in their homes without driving anywhere.

Bicycle couriers are starting to do some of this, and of course electric vehicles, but yes it is mostly fossil fueled vehicles at the moment.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on March 10, 2020, 06:23:10 pm
But Amazon is still using more total packaging no matter the size, that's the point.  Unless all growth is using 100% recycled and 100% non-fossil fuel energy then growth is not sustainable longterm unless we do so or acquire more resources away from earth.
it doesn't have to be recycled, just sustainable
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2020, 07:41:37 pm
it doesn't have to be recycled, just sustainable
What do you call sustainable? Plastic bags and other single use plastics are sustainable. We have enough oil to make them for a thousand years.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Omni on March 10, 2020, 08:21:16 pm
What do you call sustainable? Plastic bags and other single use plastics are sustainable. We have enough oil to make them for a thousand years.

Except investors are fleeing the oil market like rts from a sinking ship. Checked the price lately?
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 10, 2020, 09:10:54 pm
Except investors are fleeing the oil market like rts from a sinking ship. Checked the price lately?
So? Checked the Canadian dollar lately?
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 10, 2020, 09:51:06 pm
Except investors are fleeing the oil market like rts from a sinking ship. Checked the price lately?

Low price of oil makes it even cheaper to make plastic.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Omni on March 10, 2020, 10:09:41 pm
Low price of oil makes it even cheaper to make plastic.

Right then, you carry on investing in the oil business. I'm heading out to gas up my car as the price of the product continues to nose dive. 
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: kimmy on March 12, 2020, 03:54:23 pm
I feel like the coronavirus pandemic will have economic impact that we are going to dealing with for years to come, like the 2007 meltdown.

 -k
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 12, 2020, 04:00:02 pm
I feel like the coronavirus pandemic will have economic impact that we are going to dealing with for years to come, like the 2007 meltdown.

 -k

Could be worse. Higher debt levels and lower interest rates means consumers and governments have less room to move than in 2008.

BTW, how did the jury thing work out?
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: kimmy on March 12, 2020, 04:19:26 pm
Follow my analogy.  The point is that growth is not synonymous with 'consumer more material from the earth'.

Amazon is growing while they reduce packaging size....

People think stuff like that matters. In the big picture, it doesn't.  Using less cardboard per package is pretty meaningless when the number of packages they ship has increased exponentially.

Ultimately what we need is for our population to stop growing.  I'm doing my part. :p

 -k
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: kimmy on March 12, 2020, 04:22:30 pm
BTW, how did the jury thing work out?

They excused me. It was really easy, their website has a section where you can ask to be excused.  I explained my situation, gave them my boss's phone number in case they wanted to check, and they excused me within 2 hours.

 -k
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 12, 2020, 05:21:22 pm
Right then, you carry on investing in the oil business. I'm heading out to gas up my car as the price of the product continues to nose dive.

You burn oil?  You're part of the problem.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 24, 2020, 11:17:22 am
I've consistently been making the argument for the last few years that instead of running 20 billion deficits during good economic times of record low unemployment, our government should have been at least running balanced budgets if not small surpluses and save that deficit money in order to put Canada in a better position to respond to the next economic downturn.

Graham has been proven right.  It sure would be nice to have those 80 billion back the Trudeau gov already spent to add to the stimulus and recovery measures the government has needed to put in place because of COVID-19.  We'd have more room to expand debt-to-gdp and keep it at a reasonable level.

Always listen to Graham.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on March 24, 2020, 11:36:54 am
for some time, the waldo has been HarperingOn about lost GST federal revenue: again, per the PBO, every percentage point of GST is worth about $7-Billion a year; accordingly, Harper Conservatives's 2-point GST cut in 2013 has cost a loss of, CONSERVATIVELY, $84 Billion to federal coffers!

in terms of Canada being in a better position to respond to this coming COVID-19 economic downturn, the waldo has been proven right. It sure would be nice to have that foregone $84 Billion back to add to the stimulus and recovery measures the government has needed to put in place because of COVID-19.  We'd have more room to expand debt-to-gdp and keep it at a reasonable level.

always listen to the waldo
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 24, 2020, 12:03:20 pm
for some time, the waldo has been HarperingOn about lost GST federal revenue: again, per the PBO, every percentage point of GST is worth about $7-Billion a year; accordingly, Harper Conservatives's 2-point GST cut in 2013 has cost a loss of, CONSERVATIVELY, $84 Billion to federal coffers!

in terms of Canada being in a better position to respond to this coming COVID-19 economic downturn, the waldo has been proven right. It sure would be nice to have that foregone $84 Billion back to add to the stimulus and recovery measures the government has needed to put in place because of COVID-19.  We'd have more room to expand debt-to-gdp and keep it at a reasonable level.

always listen to the waldo

The GST could have been raised again, the majority Trudeau gov had 4 years to do it.  They had total control over taxation and spending.

I wouldn't be thrilled but I'd support a tax raise before i'd support not paying for our "good times" spending
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 24, 2020, 12:53:42 pm
The GST could have been raised again, the majority Trudeau gov had 4 years to do it.  They had total control over taxation and spending.

I wouldn't be thrilled but I'd support a tax raise before i'd support not paying for our "good times" spending

You assume the government wouldn't spend every penny of it on increased program spending that couldn't be sustained in a down turn. I sure don't.

You need a mind set in government that believes part of investing in the future is not increasing debt and spending obligations when the economy is doing well, so it can react more strongly when it isn't.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 27, 2020, 02:57:36 pm
Something for debt to GDP'ers to think about. A worst case 25% drop in GDP (1.7T to 1.28T) combined with a 16% increase in debt (712B to 824B) will increase the debt to GDP ratio to 64% in a single year. Plus added borrowing as the economy tries to recover.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-19-pandemic-pbo-report-1.5512062
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: the_squid on March 27, 2020, 03:04:18 pm
Something for debt to GDP'ers to think about. A worst case 25% drop in GDP (1.7T to 1.28T) combined with a 16% increase in debt (712B to 824B) will increase the debt to GDP ratio to 64% in a single year. Plus added borrowing as the economy tries to recover.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-19-pandemic-pbo-report-1.5512062

No one claimed that COVID is good for the economy or that there won’t be real hardships because of it.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 27, 2020, 03:27:00 pm
No one claimed that COVID is good for the economy or that there won’t be real hardships because of it.

It's a lesson in how fast debt to GDP forecasts can go to hell in hand basket.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on March 27, 2020, 03:29:01 pm
It's a lesson in how fast debt to GDP forecasts can go to hell in hand basket.

Agreed - but it doesn't discredit the practice of using debt:GDP as a metric...
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 27, 2020, 03:47:17 pm
Agreed - but it doesn't discredit the practice of using debt:GDP as a metric...

It discredits the idea that you can count on ever increasing GDP to justify continued borrowing in good times.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 27, 2020, 04:46:55 pm
Something for debt to GDP'ers to think about. A worst case 25% drop in GDP (1.7T to 1.28T) combined with a 16% increase in debt (712B to 824B) will increase the debt to GDP ratio to 64% in a single year. Plus added borrowing as the economy tries to recover.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-19-pandemic-pbo-report-1.5512062

During the roughest time of the recession our deficit was 55 billion in 2009, 33 billion in 2010, and 26 billion in 2011.

We've been running a deficit of 20 billion a year in recent years with record low unemployment.

Who knows what our deficit will be by the end of this year due to the virus & needed cash injection/stimulus.  EI claims are skyrocketing (increasing gov expenditures) and revenues from income taxes, sales tax etc. (gov revenues) will tank.  This is far, far worse than the 2008 recession for Canada, and we don't have our oil industry and high oil prices to get us through this like before.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 27, 2020, 05:03:51 pm
It's a lesson in how fast debt to GDP forecasts can go to hell in hand basket.

They'll never admit it, but we were right.  They don't have to acknowledge it, the numbers speaks for themselves.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on March 27, 2020, 05:14:29 pm
It discredits the idea that you can count on ever increasing GDP to justify continued borrowing in good times.

ah yes! COVID-19... goodTimes, goodTimes!
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 27, 2020, 06:02:34 pm
ah yes! COVID-19... goodTimes, goodTimes!

No dumbass, the last four years.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on March 27, 2020, 10:05:17 pm
It discredits the idea that you can count on ever increasing GDP to justify continued borrowing in good times.

How?  Did the deficit impact the ability to create this rescue package?
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: kimmy on March 27, 2020, 10:34:57 pm
How?  Did the deficit impact the ability to create this rescue package?

The waldo proposes that yes, Canada could have been in better position to respond to this emergency:

for some time, the waldo has been HarperingOn about lost GST federal revenue: again, per the PBO, every percentage point of GST is worth about $7-Billion a year; accordingly, Harper Conservatives's 2-point GST cut in 2013 has cost a loss of, CONSERVATIVELY, $84 Billion to federal coffers!

in terms of Canada being in a better position to respond to this coming COVID-19 economic downturn, the waldo has been proven right. It sure would be nice to have that foregone $84 Billion back to add to the stimulus and recovery measures the government has needed to put in place because of COVID-19.  We'd have more room to expand debt-to-gdp and keep it at a reasonable level.

always listen to the waldo



I won't defend the cut to the GST, which I always disagreed with.  But there's an obvious disconnect here:  you can't argue that annual budget deficits are irrelevant because the GDP to debt ratio remains strong while simultaneously arguing that we would be in a better position if we hadn't lost the revenue from the GST cuts.

 -k

Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: BC_cheque on March 28, 2020, 12:51:51 am
It's a lesson in how fast debt to GDP forecasts can go to hell in hand basket.



Sure, hindsight has the handful of people who tried to warn us about this, but being prepared for a pandemic that'll bring the economy to a grinding halt isn't really something you can forecast and budget for.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on March 28, 2020, 04:46:48 am
I won't defend the cut to the GST, which I always disagreed with.  But there's an obvious disconnect here:  you can't argue that annual budget deficits are irrelevant because the GDP to debt ratio remains strong while simultaneously arguing that we would be in a better position if we hadn't lost the revenue from the GST cuts.

the disconnect is yours! Think debt versus economic output and what the degree of that output means in terms of debt... gee, what's it called again?  ;D And ya, completely unrelated, that lost GST revenue could have many targets - even applied to debt... or COVID-19 mitigation/recovery. Try again; try harder!
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 28, 2020, 10:36:50 am
the disconnect is yours! Think debt versus economic output and what the degree of that output means in terms of debt... gee, what's it called again?  ;D And ya, completely unrelated, that lost GST revenue could have many targets - even applied to debt... or COVID-19 mitigation/recovery. Try again; try harder!

Why didn't the majority Liberal government raise the GST back up?  That's on them to fund their own programs.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 28, 2020, 11:30:33 am
the disconnect is yours! Think debt versus economic output and what the degree of that output means in terms of debt... gee, what's it called again?  ;D And ya, completely unrelated, that lost GST revenue could have many targets - even applied to debt... or COVID-19 mitigation/recovery. Try again; try harder!

According to the PBO, economic output could decrease up to 25% this year. What now genius?
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on March 28, 2020, 11:36:03 am
Why didn't the majority Liberal government raise the GST back up?  That's on them to fund their own programs.

a Conservative government giveth the 7% GST and a Conservative government taketh away 1%... then taketh away another 1% of that GST. Introducing and lowering GST levels seems to be a Conservative government thingee. And the waldo thought raising GST was a so-called political non-starter - but good on ya for wanting a Liberal government to do so - good on ya!  ;D
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on March 28, 2020, 11:38:59 am
According to the PBO, economic output could decrease up to 25% this year. What now genius?

I trust the government has you on speed-dial... just make sure you give credit to your go-to Fraser Institute bros, hey!
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 28, 2020, 01:38:04 pm
I trust the government has you on speed-dial... just make sure you give credit to your go-to Fraser Institute bros, hey!
\
\
That is a PBO document. That is the government itself. Not me and not the Fraser Institute. Reading deficit have we?

Quote
Parliament's budget watchdog predicts the Canadian economy could contract by a staggering 25 per cent in the second quarter of this year, while the annual budget deficit could top $112.7 billion by the fiscal year's end.

Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 28, 2020, 02:01:50 pm
a Conservative government giveth the 7% GST and a Conservative government taketh away 1%... then taketh away another 1% of that GST. Introducing and lowering GST levels seems to be a Conservative government thingee. And the waldo thought raising GST was a so-called political non-starter - but good on ya for wanting a Liberal government to do so - good on ya!  ;D

I prefer a raise of the GST than an indefinite raise of the deficits/debt.

I'm not a PC supporter and I'm not a CPC supporter and never have been.  Mulroney spent like nuts and then put in the GST.  Chretien promised to scrap the GST before the 1993 election.  Promise broken, but thankfully he used it to pay down the debt.

If the current gov doesn't have the courage to demand we pay for their programs and like cowards put that burden on future generations, then you don't fund those programs.  But alas, they're cowards.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: wilber on March 28, 2020, 02:48:42 pm
I prefer a raise of the GST than an indefinite raise of the deficits/debt.



The problem is, there is no reason to assume you wouldn't get both.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on May 16, 2020, 10:15:49 am
This makes the case that the US $ is on it's way out as the world's reserve currency.  We have heard it before, but...

https://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2020-05-14/The-US-dollar-the-final-act.html?fbclid=IwAR2bsKU7d-FBYIrH2OqT9oK35ubdN5EaDS-3oK-uD0kLRK9VshDXphsZHOU#.Xr_HVF9Bq4I.facebook
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on May 16, 2020, 10:17:59 am
https://www.quora.com/What-happens-if-the-U-S-dollar-loses-its-status-as-the-worlds-major-reserve-currency

And a take on that...
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on August 15, 2020, 06:39:28 am
MMT ... Happening NOW

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-14/like-it-or-not-a-modern-monetary-theory-experiment-is-underway
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: JuniperRose on August 15, 2020, 11:28:23 am
Post-Work society: Fully automated luxury communism

I think people overall could benefit from shorter working hours.  I had a stint where my day was shortened by two hours per day, but my productivity did not change.  I felt much more focused while at work, and not increasingly tired as the week progressed. 

I agree that people need a reason to get up and busier people tend to be happier, but the "busy" doesn't have to be long hours at a job thst you tolerate or actively hate - especially when these jobs leave you too tired/stressed to really enjoy your off-time.

I think we can find a better balance between what's happening now for most people and "automated luxury communism".  I think we need to understand that an economic model built around unending "growth" has to fail at some point  In my opinion, a more realistic long term model would be to have an economic system where the goal is "comfortable" and not insanely wealthy.  Products would not be designed with replacement after two to four years, and the "newer better" would really be
better by a significant amount  not just a cosmetic change or a tiny upgrade. 
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on August 22, 2020, 11:43:12 am
per UBC Econ Prof Kevin Milligan: Don’t Worry About the Federal Deficit --- Politicians often argue that government debt will cause hardship for future generations. They’re wrong (https://thewalrus.ca/democracy-dont-worry-about-the-federal-deficit/)

(https://i.imgur.com/ITNPld2.png)

Quote
But won’t taxes have to rise? At the risk of belabouring the analogy: if our children are saddled with the mortgage we take out now, won’t they need to raise funds to pay it down? No. When debt growth is modest and interest rates are low, the economy grows faster than the cost of servicing debt. This (though politicians would have you believe otherwise) is Economics 101: what matters is not the absolute size of the debt but its size relative to the country’s economy overall. As with the financing of your home, there isn’t such a thing as a “big” or “small” mortgage per se—it entirely depends on your income. Economists use the debt-to-GDP ratio, which measures a country’s debt burden relative to its national income, to assess this for Canada’s economy. When we think of the fiscal—or moral—consequences of our debt policy on the next generation, the debt-to-GDP ratio is the right guidepost. And a responsible fiscal policy ensures that the debt-to-GDP ratio does not grow, not that we have no debt, or run no deficits, at all.
.
Over the five years from 2009 to 2014, Canada added $158 billion to the federal debt—which sounds like a lot, but our economy’s size was closing in on $2 trillion at the time, so the crucial debt-to-GDP ratio didn’t move much. We did add $71 billion of debt over the last four years—but the debt-to-GDP ratio actually fell by 1 percent over that period, since the economy grew more quickly than the debt did. Debts rise and fall, but there is no inexorable march to crisis that is unleashed by allowing some degree of discretion on deficit spending or the debt that ensues. We should just accept that the debt battle has been won and move on.

(https://i.imgur.com/fCc0y6U.png)
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: kimmy on August 25, 2020, 12:17:48 pm
Chrystia Freeland talks income inequality, wealth distribution, economic mobility, stagnant incomes for the 99%, and more in this TED Talk from 2013:

https://www.ted.com/talks/chrystia_freeland_the_rise_of_the_new_global_super_rich?language=en

This is the kind of thing that I was hoping for from the Liberals when they took office in 2015.


 -k
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on August 25, 2020, 12:34:56 pm
Chrystia Freeland talks income inequality, wealth distribution, economic mobility, stagnant incomes for the 99%, and more in this TED Talk from 2013:

https://www.ted.com/talks/chrystia_freeland_the_rise_of_the_new_global_super_rich?language=en

This is the kind of thing that I was hoping for from the Liberals when they took office in 2015.


 -k

OMG... it's LEFTY KIMMY !!! Welcome back
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: kimmy on August 26, 2020, 07:42:06 pm
OMG... it's LEFTY KIMMY !!! Welcome back

Don't call it a comeback, I been here for years!


Here's an article about what may be in store as Freeland takes over Finance.  The theme of the piece is that Trudeau is interested in addressing rapidly rising income inequality, and Morneau apparently wasn't. But it's something that Freeland has been interested in for a long time, as her 2012 book and 2013 Ted Talk demonstrate. With the covid shitstorm, this might be a golden opportunity to change our economy.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-26/trudeau-plots-sharpest-turn-left-in-economic-policy-since-1980s

 -k
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on August 27, 2020, 08:05:43 am
Quote
Freeland, while not ultra-wealthy, has been part of that same globe-trotting elite since her career as an editor at the Reuters news service and the Financial Times. Her book’s acknowledgments include Eric Schmidt, George Soros, Jeff Immelt, and David Rubenstein on a list of people who “helped me to understand their world and some have become friends.”
  :D
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on September 14, 2020, 04:09:52 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGZ7nJCzlW4

Richard Wolff on MMT
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on September 15, 2020, 12:58:38 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jBetgONs0E

Ok.

I think I have this a little clearer:

Instead of borrowing the money, we print it and save the interest rate.  The danger is that governments will go even more deficit mad than they are today.  ( Looking at YOU Trump )
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 15, 2020, 01:51:55 pm
Chrystia Freeland talks income inequality, wealth distribution, economic mobility, stagnant incomes for the 99%, and more in this TED Talk from 2013:

https://www.ted.com/talks/chrystia_freeland_the_rise_of_the_new_global_super_rich?language=en

This is the kind of thing that I was hoping for from the Liberals when they took office in 2015.

Agreed.   Where are the structural changes?  Why do house rices keep booming but incomes aren't?  How is this being paid for??  Why are banks and the finance industry still allowed to rip people off and not act in their best interests while taking hush-hush commissions from mutual funds they recommend to clients etc.  We've mostly been getting deficit spending, that's not much of a solution, it's just kicking the can down the road.

I think the CPC and Liberals have the banks, housing developers, and corporations in general in their pockets.  Same at the provincial level, and municipal.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on September 15, 2020, 01:55:52 pm
1. Where are the structural changes?  Why do house rices keep booming but incomes aren't?  How is this being paid for?? 
2. Why are banks and the finance industry still allowed to rip people off and not act in their best interests while taking hush-hush commissions from mutual funds they recommend to clients etc. 
 

1. Money laundering and government promoting speculation.
2. The middle class benefits tangentially due to rising house prices.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 15, 2020, 07:43:16 pm
1. Money laundering and government promoting speculation.
2. The middle class benefits tangentially due to rising house prices.

2. If you sell your home for a profit, you still have to buy another ridiculously expensive house to live in.  Unless you move from a big city to the middle of nowhere, there's no benefit.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: MH on September 15, 2020, 07:55:29 pm
2. If you sell your home for a profit, you still have to buy another ridiculously expensive house to live in.  Unless you move from a big city to the middle of nowhere, there's no benefit.

That's called retirement.  There are also other benefits to having an expensive house, like renting out the basement for $1500/month and remortgaging and using the money to buy RRSPs.
Title: Re: Economics Culture
Post by: waldo on September 19, 2020, 01:32:44 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/gDlV5kK.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/tSglAOH.png)