The Three Reasons Canada is in Big Trouble

[yolosohobby]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-three-reasons-canada-is-in-big-trouble-2013-6

the debt part is actually worrisome ... as is our overall exposure to commodities/ lack of manufacturing base.
the scandals are frustrating but things aren't bad enough for the majority of folks to do anything about them. yet

 

[Ceiling Cat]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-three-reasons-canada-is-in-big-trouble-2013-6

the debt part is actually worrisome ... as is our overall exposure to commodities/ lack of manufacturing base.
the scandals are frustrating but things aren't bad enough for the majority of folks to do anything about them. yet

Simplistic gobbledygook gook, I know the sound of jealousy when I hear it.

These problems do not happen else where, and certainly not in the USA, right?

These problems are being dealt with, they are now being hauled out into the open.

 

[yolosohobby]

but its nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman. He is not into gobbledegook

 

[Ceiling Cat]

If there is more to his story let us hear it, but what he is saying in the article is pretty thin.

 

[explorerzip]

The other problem is what will happen to the large numbers of unemployed and underemployed young people out there not contributing to the economy. They have no way to pay off school debts, and will have no way to buy the houses of the baby boomers when they retire, which they will have to do one day.

I think there's going to be some major changes in things like mortgages if a large part of society can only find part-time or temporary work.

 

[sturmgewehr44]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-three-reasons-canada-is-in-big-trouble-2013-6

the debt part is actually worrisome ... as is our overall exposure to commodities/ lack of manufacturing base.
the scandals are frustrating but things aren't bad enough for the majority of folks to do anything about them. yet

Believe me Canada is in very good, compared to other countries. But improvement must be looked at every year. Future must be examined and studied.

 

[canada-man]

The other problem is what will happen to the large numbers of unemployed and underemployed young people out there not contributing to the economy. They have no way to pay off school debts, and will have no way to buy the houses of the baby boomers when they retire, which they will have to do one day.

I think there's going to be some major changes in things like mortgages if a large part of society can only find part-time or temporary work.

tell that the people who insist that young people should work for free calling them internships

 

[yolosohobby]

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/02/04/worse-than-california/

This drives the problem home ...

 

[explorerzip]

tell that the people who insist that young people should work for free calling them internships

Except if all they can find is free internships, they won't be buying much.

 

[JohnLarue]

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/02/04/worse-than-california/

This drives the problem home ...

I have been pounding the table about this for over a year, yet all the lefties here just think the provincial govt is a bottomless money pit

 

[james t kirk]

but its nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman. He is not into gobbledegook

Krugman is a notorious bear. He is all "the sky is falling, the sky is falling"

 

[explorerzip]

I have been pounding the table about this for over a year, yet all the lefties here just think the provincial govt is a bottomless money pit

Got to love the neo-con view that the world is black and white, all lefties spend like drunken sailors and all we need to do is cut spending for things to be fine. Sigh. We need to do a bit of both: spending cuts and increasing taxes. Both are hard pills to swallow, but necessary. Even if you want to use the way over used 'run the province like a business' rhetoric, you still have to find a balance between increasing revenue and decreasing spending while investing in infrastructure, education, programs, etc. and paying down the debt.

Personally, I think social programs, health care, education and infrastructure (public transit, etc.) i.e. public goods need to be funded with a combination of public money and user fees. If people value libraries, skating rinks, zoos, swimming pools, cultural venues, etc. then they should be prepared to pay a nominal fee for them. On the other hand, you can't just pay for these things only with user fees.

 

[Rockslinger]

Don't worry, be happy.

 

[onthebottom]

I usually argue that Krugman is one of the smartest guys who's almost always wrong - that's because he lets his left wing politics influence his economics education. Now we have the primary shill for deficits don't matter worried about high debt rates and an asset bubble..... Much clearer thinking then when he's pimping the political agenda.

If you believe that Canada has a real estate bubble then you believe Canada is in for a rude shock.

 

[WoodPeckr]

NOW THAT IS FUNNY BOTTIE!!!!!!!!!!!....:biggrin1:

Surely YOU recall when your boy DICK Cheney also said deficits don't matter and YOU supported your DICK!!!

Why the 'Flip-Flop' now bottie???

Amuse us all with your obfuscation on that one.....:eyebrows:

 

[Leaf Lover]

intredasting thread

 

[chiller_boy]

I usually argue that Krugman is one of the smartest guys who's almost always wrong - that's because he lets his left wing politics influence his economics education. Now we have the primary shill for deficits don't matter worried about high debt rates and an asset bubble..... Much clearer thinking then when he's pimping the political agenda.

If you believe that Canada has a real estate bubble then you believe Canada is in for a rude shock.

I believe Krugman is right far more than you give him credit. David Frum said that if you wanted an analysis of what is actually going on, economically over the past ten years or so, and had to choose between Krugman and the wall street journal there would be no comparison. Krugman doesnt have a political agenda at all, but he does have an economic one(which economists do typically have), and its keynsian..

 

[JohnLarue]

Got to love the neo-con view that the world is black and white, all lefties spend like drunken sailors and all we need to do is cut spending for things to be fine. Sigh. We need to do a bit of both: spending cuts and increasing taxes. Both are hard pills to swallow, but necessary. Even if you want to use the way over used 'run the province like a business' rhetoric, you still have to find a balance between increasing revenue and decreasing spending while investing in infrastructure, education, programs, etc. and paying down the debt.

Personally, I think social programs, health care, education and infrastructure (public transit, etc.) i.e. public goods need to be funded with a combination of public money and user fees. If people value libraries, skating rinks, zoos, swimming pools, cultural venues, etc. then they should be prepared to pay a nominal fee for them. On the other hand, you can't just pay for these things only with user fees.

spending by the Ont govt has increased 47% since the liberals came to power
Tax increases are hardly appropriate when the issue is a lack of control on the spending side
There is no need to pay a grade 2 teacher $83K a year
And there is certainly no need to turn around and ask me the taxpayer to contribute more to cover this wasteful spending
We pay more than 50% of our income on taxes. That is nuts

 

[fuji]

The oil prices pumping up asset values is likely a real problem. At some point oil prices drop, we aren't sloshing in cash, asset prices contract, and yeah that's a problem.

Unfortunately we have a Western oriented government that is completely in the pocket of the oil industry and isn't likely to do ANYTHING to try and create a soft landing.

The right thing to do would be to put some controls around oil that limit the variability in pricing. That will immediately create a shock, that will hit asset prices, slowing oil development, and consequently driving down house prices--but not so severe a shock as if we wait until the thing collapses on its own. It is usually better to try and let the air out of these things slowly, rather than wait for it to pop.

There is little downside. If it turns out there is no asset bubble and all we have done is stalled oil development, then that just means we will have more oil to pump out of the ground later. Assuming that in the very long run oil prices go back up again, even if in the next decade or two they go down, that isn't really a bad decision for a nation, for a country as a whole, to make. Of course the people employed in oil businesses today want the cash NOW, so they can spend it on yachts, but their interests aren't necessarily aligned with the national interest.

 

[onthebottom]

I believe Krugman is right far more than you give him credit. David Frum said that if you wanted an analysis of what is actually going on, economically over the past ten years or so, and had to choose between Krugman and the wall street journal there would be no comparison. Krugman doesnt have a political agenda at all, but he does have an economic one(which economists do typically have), and its keynsian..

That's one of the funniest things I've ever read... and that's a high bar....