Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurch
Gov't cannot 'write it off' (I just had a Seinfeld flashback - "they just write it off, Jerrry!"). I can't think of how the concept would even work for a gov't.
Gov't does own assets, and the CPP has significant holdings. All gov't buildings, for example, could be considered assets the gov't has invested in (and is now selling off for the most part). Gov't also used to hold significant share of companies like Petro Canada, but I think this has been divested.
I'm not sure what Layton does or does not know about economics, but it is not clear paying off debt is the best choice for surpluses. I personally believe in it for reasons way to long to get into here, but there are a lot of very good arguments for governments using debt for a wide variety of reasons. Businesses and individuals typically carry debt, some for good reasons and some for bad - gov't likely has similar options. I just don't believe they are capable of making good debt decisions so we should largely take that choice away.
|
Thanks Lurch, I didn't want to ask the stupid question, but I appreciate the answer. And yes, Petro-Canada (PC) is not government owned at all anymore. I actually work for them so it's been interesting learning about their "colourful" history. One interesting thing about PC is that there is a requirement that a certain percentage of ownership is Canadian. PC is a mid-size company that is a very attractive company to purchase, but due to the Canadian clause, purchasing it makes it difficult.
I understand your other point as well, you can carry good debt or bad debt. I guess I assumed that most of the govt's debt is bad (money that hasn't been used for investment purposes). This is why I figured it made sense to pay the debt down.