Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
Banking regulations and monetary policy are shaped with almost always long term effects. The biggest reason we weren't swept up in the crisis were our banking regulations which are in effect for decades.
Assigning credit or blame to recent governments for economics is almost always a fools game. Trends are usually from many different factors and governments really can't change things much (without destroying things) short term.
For example, how long did it take to see the benefit of the infrastructure spend from the conservatives? A long, long time if at all
|
Alright. Well at least the CPC responded the right way to the global meltdown by implementing accommodative policy and then committing to rebalancing the budget when it passed. Though I think you meant to say fiscal policy, as you used an example of infrastructure spending. Monetary policy has immediate impacts.
The issue is that once you start the cycle of very loose fiscal policy, it becomes very difficult and unpopular to reverse course. If the Liberals actually follow through on decreasing the deficit after this cyclical macro weakness, I will be impressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
... The last Conservative to leave federal office having accrued less debt during his tenure then when he entered was (IIRC) Deifenbaker. Ergo...
|
You need to look at the size of the debt load compared to the size of the economy. What if a conservative took on $1 more of debt but grew the economy by an additional $1B? Ridiculous example but shows the over-simplicity of what you're saying.