LOL! If you have a family member that can't stop spending/borrowing, is their income the problem or is their spending habits the problem? I guess if they truly don't want to adjust their spending habits, well, they will have no choice but to earn/generate more income. Or, if you drank all the debt to GDP ratio Kool-Aid, you can hold on to the fanciful dream that GDP will grow at a rate so high and in perpetuity that you can literally borrow to pay for all the things you can't afford! LOL
PERB election poll
- Thread starter MB Mod
- Start date
Me:
-"Debt in isolation is meaningless. Talk debt to GDP, then maybe we'll get somewhere."
- inferring that the debt to GDP is a more useful measure of fiscal responsibility than debt alone, no more no less.
You:
-"People that like to talk about "debt to GDP" without a plan to repay that debt ASSUMES that GDP will go up and debt to GDP will fall"
-People (seems like you are one of them) that pin their hopes on paying down debt with a decreasing "debt to GDP ratio" is like someone taking out a mortgage that they cannot afford and their plan for repayment is simply "I'll just make more money in the future."
-People like you would say "we can borrow even more because the debt to GDP ratio is lower than X right now"
-And people like you, simply fell for it - instead of asking the logical question of how it will be paid back.
-Based on that theoretical picture - people like you would still support such a scenario of endless debt simply because GDP is increasing at a rate greater than new debt (i.e. debt to GDP ratio is falling), and that would be foolish!
-Again, debt to GDP ratio was simply brought into the discussion by a certain political party to justify MORE DEBT - and it appears to have worked, at least it has worked on you!
LOL mate you need to calm down. It's very clear you have some kind of bias working for you in order to make all of the assumptions that you did about me based off of me ONLY arguing that debt to GDP ratio is more useful than debt alone when determining fiscal responsibility. You seem to know me better than I know myself, maybe I'm missing something.
The use of financial ratios has been around for as long as finance has been around, and nobody makes decisions based on financial ratios alone (e.g. you wouldn't analyze a stock off of its PE ratio alone... or you might, IDK). It's one way to aid in decision making, but isn't THE decision maker. Users of such information can compare ratios across different times, eras, against other nations, etc. None of which are ultra reliable, and there even could be a case to argue that it's misleading, but it nonetheless can support theories, some that are stronger than others. The debt to GDP ratio is backwards looking, and a plan to pay off debt is forward looking. To compare the two when considering fiscal responsibility would be... asinine. Nobody has said anything about using debt to GDP as a justification for creating more debt except you, so something must be weighing heavily on you this election... my condolences.
FWIW on a personal note, I've voted for three different parties across the last five elections, including the Conservatives, and I don't know who I'm voting for yet in the upcoming election... but I'm sure you know who I'll be voting for somehow.
So you are going to waste your vote on a Liberal Leader that throw his caucus members under the bus so that he can stay in power. So when Trudeau is elected this time with a majority, you will be singing Kum By Yah with whatever other tune Trudeau supports. If Trudeau is elected I predict that he will have 2 major scandals, where he will kill 2 cabinet ministers' political lives.... He then will become the dictator for life.....
The reality is that if Trudeau gets elected again, your kids will be paying off Trillions of dollars in debt to First Nations, due to his "Reconciliation". Selling your childrens' future into perpetual debt. I still have to wonder what "Reconciliation" is; as it applies to get back together, when its oblivious its not. It more like Merging.
Conservatives are not Republicans.
Maybe soon the armed thugs of the Apocalypse will go to the streets stopping ambulance paramedics from reviving heroin addicts from being resuscitated. Women will be attacked and beaten like in Afghanistan with the revival of the Taliban. China will infiltate into the Arctic Sea for oil and resources, and Canada won't have anything to oppose them there.
All Canadians then can do is just sit in the T-pees and smoke pot, because they will lose their houses due to high taxes to pay off the national debt.
Tax increases... GST will have to go up (I predict 6.5%). So will some provincial taxes (although anything higher then HST combined of 15% is unreasonable)
An untapped tax base will be First Nations. First would be gas taxes to increase to same provincial/area taxes, because first nation gas stations sell to non first nations, and will prevent white men from buying non taxed first nation gas. Hence the white man will have to pay full gas prices at his local gas station.
Next will be Land taxes on buildings on First Nations, next will be business taxes and finally income tax for first nation people. After all 20 billion was dumped into that federal department last year.
I can't wait for new laws for overseas tax havens to come into effect for all Canadian including First Nations. This hidden money in tax havens (other countries) will be a resource in years to come.
Also the major banks will be forced to bring their HQ back to Canada and not located in tax havens where they escape Canadian taxation laws. If the business is done in Canada, it should be taxed in Canada. The Big Banks will be fucked. So expect you mortgage rates to go up.
Also the price of inflation is up, so will the mortgage rates.
20-25 years ago institutions (banks and mortgage companies) were offering loans at sub-par prime. eg. rates lower then the prime lending rate. today you don't see those types of loans because people saved so much money on them.
Prime goals of any government will be to pay the debt down because of spending on Covid (most money went to keep the banks afloat, so that they didn't call mortgage loans in). Hence why the rents were paid by the fed government. Why because the banks would fail, because they are overextended on high over price mortgages due to high price real estate in the big cities of Toronto and Vancouver. Also in factor is the pumping up of over valued properities by the banks. The prices are now at a place where any higher the value will drop and you will get a market correction. This will happen in a few days when all chinese investors from china will sell their homes at a loss causing a market collaspe.... when a certain someone gets deported to the US.....
An untapped tax base will be First Nations. First would be gas taxes to increase to same provincial/area taxes, because first nation gas stations sell to non first nations, and will prevent white men from buying non taxed first nation gas. Hence the white man will have to pay full gas prices at his local gas station.
Next will be Land taxes on buildings on First Nations, next will be business taxes and finally income tax for first nation people. After all 20 billion was dumped into that federal department last year.
I can't wait for new laws for overseas tax havens to come into effect for all Canadian including First Nations. This hidden money in tax havens (other countries) will be a resource in years to come.
Also the major banks will be forced to bring their HQ back to Canada and not located in tax havens where they escape Canadian taxation laws. If the business is done in Canada, it should be taxed in Canada. The Big Banks will be fucked. So expect you mortgage rates to go up.
Also the price of inflation is up, so will the mortgage rates.
20-25 years ago institutions (banks and mortgage companies) were offering loans at sub-par prime. eg. rates lower then the prime lending rate. today you don't see those types of loans because people saved so much money on them.
Prime goals of any government will be to pay the debt down because of spending on Covid (most money went to keep the banks afloat, so that they didn't call mortgage loans in). Hence why the rents were paid by the fed government. Why because the banks would fail, because they are overextended on high over price mortgages due to high price real estate in the big cities of Toronto and Vancouver. Also in factor is the pumping up of over valued properities by the banks. The prices are now at a place where any higher the value will drop and you will get a market correction. This will happen in a few days when all chinese investors from china will sell their homes at a loss causing a market collaspe.... when a certain someone gets deported to the US.....
Our choice of leaders is lousy. They all have their scandals. I don't consider my vote wasted if it keeps conservatives out of power. I lived in Ab through all the conservative grift, corruption, lies and destruction of a legacy. And The Tool and his conservatives are certainly not the solution to any of our problems. JUST LIKE Republicans, all they care about is power.
Isn't GDP meaningless? The statistic is only a very rough and ready measure which measures production and certainly does not measure anything slightly more sophisticated like economic welfare or progress. GDP is a lump sum, GDP per capita is an average, and inflation is not taken into account.
Debt to GDP is everything. Because it's a ratio of the size of the economy to the amount of debt. The US has $30 trillion of Federal debt. That's manageable for a nation with a GDP the size of the United States, but it would choke Canada.
The government should only be concerned about growing the economy. Because when the economy grows, the debt takes care of itself.
The government should only be concerned about growing the economy. Because when the economy grows, the debt takes care of itself.
What is debt to GDP ratio useful for? Seriously, it's a ratio - that's it. A ratio cannot tell you if it is "an appropriate level" or not in isolation. USUALLY, ratios are used for comparisons, LIKE A P/E ratio. Company X's P/E ratio on it's own is useless, it's a measure to compare across comps (usually a peer group within the same industry). BUT THAT IS NOT HOW ONE SHOULD EVALUATE DEBT - unless you believe in "keeping up with the Jones'" when it comes to debt, i.e. "our debt to GDP ratio is lower than the US (or whatever other country) therefore WE CAN AFFORD IT". That is foolish and again, debt to GDP ratio was never in the common parlance of the average Canadian until recently when a particular political party used it as justification for taking on more debt - I believe that original promise was a mere $10 billion (if memory serves from the 2015 election promise of a certain political party). What is truly sad is that you simply chirp off like a trained parrot and say "but debt to GDP" and you can't even explain and justify why debt to GDP even matters. There's that old saying, train a parrot to say "supply and demand" and you have an economist - you're simply a trained parrot that knows the soup de jour political tag-line word of the day!
You don't get it do you, it's not about what someone "wants to cut" it's what they will ultimately "have to cut" regardless of want or desire. It wasn't that long ago (the 90's) when cuts HAD to be made, not because they were "wanted" or "desired." But I reckon (if you are even old enough) that you moaned and cried about federal cuts to provincial transfers (mainly healthcare transfers) during the 90's to balance the books while ignoring the fundamental problem that generations of borrowing and spending was what lead to those cuts. History does have a funny way of repeating itself!
Oh no, I fully get it. You'll claim that certain things 'must' be cut while bypassing your pet projects or things that benefit you directly. Ive seen it so many times before to know that its all bullshit.
What are the benefits of reduced debt vs the spending. Who benefits ? What is the correct amount of debt , debt to GDP, and what should our Gini be exactly?
I understand that debt spending into perpetuity is not a good policy, but a more nuanced argument would examine the degrees of re-adjustment. And id very much take a Keynesian aproach after a pandemic and economic downturn with low interest rates.
LOL! My gawd, you're worse that a trained parrot that was taught to say the words "supply and demand" - you actually believe you're an economist! I'll regret this later, what exactly is your more "nuanced' Keynesian or neo-Keynesian approach? LOL
Better than 'trickle down'.
And you're resorting to personal atracks rather than addressing what im saying.
Im not an economist but i read. What are your credentials exactly then?
Google doesn't have anything on "sub-par prime" and refers me to "sub prime" always. In finance, subprime lending is the provision of loans to people who may have difficulty maintaining the repayment schedule. Historically, subprime borrowers were defined as having FICO scores below 600, although this threshold has varied over time.
Many tens of thousands of dollars on multiple degrees (both undergraduate and graduate degrees) in Economics, Finance and Business.
What you are saying in pure drivel. That's it. Debt is not complicated where you have to bring in Keynesian economic theory! If you can't afford something, and need to borrow to buy, AT THE VERY LEAST HAVE A PLAN AND INTENTION TO REPAY THE DEBT - it's rather quite simple isn't it. What you are saying is actually nothing - you claim to have a more "nuanced" perspective, when in fact your "nuance" is attempting to use big words like "a Keynesian approach" and "trickle down economics." Telling a family member that overspends on credit that they should stop borrowing and spending is not lecturing them on "trickle down economics" (it's not even about economic theory) - it's just logical/reasonable to tell a family member not to buy things that they cannot afford. Same goes for governments that continually want to borrow and spend without any plan to repay debt! Reading isn't a skill you should be proud of, my 10 year old niece can read - almost everyone in this country can read. You need to learn how to connect the dots - and sometimes, when not to connect the dots, like bringing in Keynesian economics when the topic isn't about economic theory. Debt with no plan to pay it back - what do you think Keynes or Smith or any economist would say about that. Again, it's not about economic theory, one does not need to be learned in Keynesian economics to understand that DEBT WITHOUT ANY PLAN TO PAY IT BACK is asinine! And no, that's not trickle down economics - that's just common sense!
😅 - I could almost feel the spittle from the level of virtol in that rant. You must be awsome at parties.
Anyways you're obsviously not someone who can hold a discussion despite your many tens thousands of dollars spent on degrees. You just want to tell us what to think and do, but I'll disengage here instead of fighting and making personal ATTACKs!!!!!!
LOL! I asked you point blank previously, " what exactly is your more "nuanced' Keynesian or neo-Keynesian approach?"
Seems like you're the one that can't hold a discussion when challenged to explain your "Keynesian" approach! LOL
I don't know what it's called, vitriol, bias or whatever, but what you seem to suffer from is making yourself the victim (i.e. claiming personal attacks) when you're called out for your own foolish desire to appear learned by using big words like "nuanced Keynesian approach" and "trickle down economics."
The Conservative commercial ... Old Toole says he is gonna do this n that, fix housing, get us in recovery mode etc etc..... BUT the last one he sorta mentions is Balance the budget... Bottom line here is .... a whopping increase in Taxes, and cuts in all Services,,, Postal, CBC, Provincial and Municipal support. It is no contest who I have to vote for, I am in a secure green riding.
Yeah that chart doesn't include provincial debt. We're probably in number 2 or 3 now relative to GDP. It's pretty bad. The US is a shit-show but people actually need US dollars for international trade. Canada's on it's own.
Just because Mulroney sucked (Harper did pretty good considering the 2008 financial crisis) doesn't mean Trudeau isn't currently destroying the county.
