And to be fair, Cliff, I am not accusing you of making that claim.
I saw this earlier today, with that headline, and it kind of pissed me off because we are constantly being fed opinion pieces as news nowadays.
It's disingenous for the article to bring up the frustrations of young people (with facts, to be fair) and then allude that we are suffering a breakdown in the social contract. That seems a bit much.
I mean..."We won't be in a technical recession and our economic issues will be solved if we let in more foreign students!" is a simple solution to a complex problem as well and yet one the current government is doing.
The feds better step in quickly and save this industry and jobs. They need to double or triple their investment in this project.
Quote:
After breaking ground in 2023, the company building a plant to produce battery components for electric vehicles in a municipality near Kingston, Ont., says it's delaying construction of the plant citing a slowdown in EV sales.
In a statement to CBC News, Umicore Rechargeable Battery Materials Inc. said Friday that its project in Loyalist Township is impacted by the "significant worsening of the EV market context and the impacts this has on the entire supply chain."
Forecast per capita growth 1 year in the future to be positive...just completely out of touch.
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. LOL, a central bank cuts interest rates because things are getting bad not because things are good. What kind of ignorant banana republic nonsense is this?
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to chemgear For This Useful Post:
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. LOL, a central bank cuts interest rates because things are getting bad not because things are good. What kind of ignorant banana republic nonsense is this?
I mean, it was RBC that predicted per capita GDP to increase in the 2nd half of 2025, not the government. And it's not a particularly outlandish prediction, even if we do see some sort of downturn.
Over the last several years (including the COVID recession), real GDP has increased faster than labor force growth, so GDP per worker (which is a more important measure than per capita) has been going up. What has been driving the reduction in per capita GDP has been non-labor force population growth. If that is slowed through fewer temporary students coming in, then the denominator changes and per capita GDP would tend to rise. Particularly as new immigrants who are part of the labor force become more productive, which is generally what happens.
There is normally a lag in per capita GDP responding to changes in population growth rates, and that's what we're seeing now. We saw the same thing during COVID (but in the opposite direction) when immigration basically stopped and population growth was very low. Per capita GDP grew by over 4% from Q1 2020 to Q1 2022 even though we had a recession in there, and that was because the population growth stalled, keeping the denominator artificially low. But obviously if that situation continued, then per capita GDP wouldn't have continued to rise indefinitely because the lack of population growth would lead to slower economic growth. And a similar effect is happening now, where we're adding population, but the positive economic effects will be felt in future years.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
I mean, it was RBC that predicted per capita GDP to increase in the 2nd half of 2025, not the government. And it's not a particularly outlandish prediction, even if we do see some sort of downturn.
Over the last several years (including the COVID recession), real GDP has increased faster than labor force growth, so GDP per worker (which is a more important measure than per capita) has been going up. What has been driving the reduction in per capita GDP has been non-labor force population growth. If that is slowed through fewer temporary students coming in, then the denominator changes and per capita GDP would tend to rise. Particularly as new immigrants who are part of the labor force become more productive, which is generally what happens.
There is normally a lag in per capita GDP responding to changes in population growth rates, and that's what we're seeing now. We saw the same thing during COVID (but in the opposite direction) when immigration basically stopped and population growth was very low. Per capita GDP grew by over 4% from Q1 2020 to Q1 2022 even though we had a recession in there, and that was because the population growth stalled, keeping the denominator artificially low. But obviously if that situation continued, then per capita GDP wouldn't have continued to rise indefinitely because the lack of population growth would lead to slower economic growth. And a similar effect is happening now, where we're adding population, but the positive economic effects will be felt in future years.
Agree, but does this still hold true if the top 5% of wage earners are eliminated from the equation? There are spurts when wage disparity becomes a mathematical factor, and it feels like we are in the middle of one.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
The Following User Says Thank You to Harry Lime For This Useful Post:
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. LOL, a central bank cuts interest rates because things are getting bad not because things are good. What kind of ignorant banana republic nonsense is this?
Rates raise = bad
Rates hold = bad
Rates cut = bad
Or maybe...economies aren't quite that simple?
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
Trudeau promised 3.9 million housing starts by 2031. Industry says that the supply chain can only handle about half of that, and realistic increase in the supply chain isn't possible to complete in 7 years, let alone the immediate use that is required to hit that target.
It's also obvious that given the current level of immigration, the promised amount of housing starts will barely cover housing needs for the newcomers, let alone the backlog. The real number of housing starts will fall short.
So the current plan is just to retire for politics before the bill is due.
So what is the criticism here? The target is both too high and too low simultaneously?
Without any other knowledge, it seems that the target is high enough to signal (if it wasn’t already bluntly obvious) to private industry that there is a big need here to fill, while at the same time not having a target that is outrageously high and impossible to meet. A middle of the road approach.
I personally don’t want government coming up with all of the solutions. This is better left to the creative people in private industry, keeps government “small”, and *should* keep government out of picking winners and losers (eg: less corruption).
In addition, isn’t housing a provincial or even municipal responsibility? Other than setting a target, putting political pressure on other levels of government, and perhaps offering funding (which I’m not sure they have done), what else can the federal government actually do?
(The above is talking about creating housing in isolation, and does not delve into reducing demand such as investment properties or the immigration topic / portfolio. That would be a completely different discussion)
I'm trying to think back to a discussion on the radio, and I think that it was with the owner of Shane Homes. He basically laid out that the supply chain, labour and organization, working at full capacity, could handle about 2M homes in that time frame. And creating the capacity for more to be built simply does not happen in today's world, at that speed.
So the federal government saying that they are targeting 3.9M, is all fine and great, just not realistic. They can however say that falling short was not their failure.
It's also bad math. The actual number has to be higher to fill the need, so they are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. That's irritating. The announcement was just a lot of hot air, unless they have a plan for making the increase happen.
The only plan that I can think of that would work is to do a post WWII build, where there are a lot of cookie cutter houses built in some less desirable areas, and then you count on the free market to fill the houses and fix some of the urban vs. rural problems in terms of population growth. I don't know, I'm probably just talking out of my butt with that, but even a crappy plan is better than no plan at all.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
Sounds like something that new private investment could come up with solutions for. I highly doubt that Shane Homes has any desire to change anything, except squeeze out more profit. Signalling that the market needs to at least double *should* bring in new players, new ideas…. assuming of course that the provinces and municipalities are willing to adapt to accept all of these new homes.
To me, this seems like a typical big private company upper management stretch goal. Take anything realistic, add more, and have you figure out how to meet it. Completely absurd when first received and no help / prescription on how to actually get there. Maybe the shared use of McKinsey and other consultants is where this practice came from
What's sad and aggravating at the same time, is that this rescue of the Sikh's was literally done for money. On top of that while Interpreters were trying to get paperwork to get through Taliban check points, and finding it impossible to do so, someone took the time to get the paperwork for these people.
Sajjan is a special kind of crook, and if we talk abot foreign influenced politicians it feels like he's one of them.
Canada's emergency preparedness minister is defending an official request he made to use Canadian soldiers as a backdrop for a concert by Punjabi pop star Diljit Dosanjh, one of India's biggest actors and singers.
This is the second time in as many months that Sajjan has found himself at the centre of media attention.
Last month, The Globe and Mail, citing unnamed sources, reported that Sajjan had "instructed Canadian special forces to rescue about 225 Afghan Sikhs" — members of a religious minority in Afghanistan — who were "not considered an operational priority for the Canadian military as they had no link to Canada" during the fall of Kabul.
In India, the Punjab region is central to the Khalistan independence movement, which campaigns for an independent Sikh homeland in the northern part of the country.
The issue of Khalistan independence has been at the centre of a diplomatic dispute between Canada and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government.
No the comment blasting Freeland was completely warranted. Devaluing the Canadian dollar by being the first to cut rates twice to bail out overextended borrowers who are overextended in part due to the governing party's policies is the opposite of victory lap worthy. As a Finance professional I feel like I'm in the twilight zone seeing that tweet by Canada's finance minister being presented as if it's indicative of anything positive (Other than I guess mild relief on interest costs for the overextended).
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
No the comment blasting Freeland was completely warranted. Devaluing the Canadian dollar by being the first to cut rates twice to bail out overextended borrowers who are overextended in part due to the governing party's policies is the opposite of victory lap worthy. As a Finance professional I feel like I'm in the twilight zone seeing that tweet by Canada's finance minister being presented as if it's indicative of anything positive (Other than I guess mild relief on interest costs for the overextended).
Why would shifting from restrictive rates to a neutral rate be considered a bad thing? That's what a central bank with an inflation mandate does after bring inflation into the target range.
If lowering rates is bad, does that mean raising them was a good indicator? No, it meant inflation was high. Yes, it can sometimes be a precursor to a recession, but certainly not always. Of the last 5 times the Bank of Canada reduced interest rates by 1% or more (excluding COVID, since that wasn't a financial thing), there was only one recession.
Why would shifting from restrictive rates to a neutral rate be considered a bad thing? That's what a central bank with an inflation mandate does after bring inflation into the target range.
If lowering rates is bad, does that mean raising them was a good indicator? No, it meant inflation was high. Yes, it can sometimes be a precursor to a recession, but certainly not always. Of the last 5 times the Bank of Canada reduced interest rates by 1% or more (excluding COVID, since that wasn't a financial thing), there was only one recession.
Is the Bank of Canada cutting rates because inflation's under control or is it cutting rates because the underlying economy is more vulnerable than others? The inflation rate mandate is 2%, it's currently as of last print in June was 2.7%. FX rate is 1.38 CAD per USD and moving higher. This isn't a victory lap moment.
Is the Bank of Canada cutting rates because inflation's under control or is it cutting rates because the underlying economy is more vulnerable than others? The inflation rate mandate is 2%, it's currently as of last print in June was 2.7%. FX rate is 1.38 CAD per USD and moving higher. This isn't a victory lap moment.
Well they look a lot deeper than the headline year-over-year inflation number and consider the lag effect of rate changes. And right now, there are only 2 reasons it's currently above the 2% target:
1) Last July and August were abnormally high; over the last 10 months, inflation is 1.7% on a seasonally adjusted basis. If July and August 2024 come in relatively normal, we'll be at or near 2% by August's reading and with a clear downward trajectory.
2) Mortgage interest inflation is adding over 1 percentage point to the headline number. That's a policy effect, not a supply/demand one. You can't necessarily exclude it from the calculation, but when it's the only thing keeping inflation above the 1% low end of the target range (as it has been over the last 10 months), then it's pretty clear that conditions are very restrictive.
So yeah, regardless of what the economy is doing, I think they'd be cutting, and getting out of restrictive territory is generally a good thing as it supports economic growth. There's a reason the bond markets are pricing in 3 cuts for the US this year, even though economic conditions there still look pretty good.
As for the exchange rate, with the exception of a period during COVID where the USD dropped, the Canadian dollar has basically been $0.74 +/- 2 cents for the last 7 years or so. We're on the low end of that range to be sure, but it really hasn't changed a whole lot if you zoom out.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Considering the violence the witness endured and the courage needed to speak up, this is pretty gross. To steel yourself to be a witness at such a hearing and then be dismissed and cut off like this.
Two witnesses stormed out of a parliamentary committee meeting today after Liberals tried to steer a planned discussion about violence against women towards the topic of abortion rights.
Though witnesses set out to sombrely argue that the current justice and bail system is failing victims, the session quickly derailed into a mess of political bickering.
Liberal MP Anita Vandenbeld was given the floor next. After making a brief statement about the federal government taking the issue seriously, the Ottawa MP chastened Conservatives for politicizing the issue and accused them of leaving little time for other parties to prepare — and no ability to recommend witnesses.
Instead of pivoting back to discussing the topic at hand with witnesses, Vandenbeld went on to move that the committee instead resume a different discussion about abortion rights.
The witnesses, left hanging, began heckling Vandenbeld.
Conservative MP Anna Roberts said she was "disgusted in this whole day," and apologized to the two.
Ferreri blasted Vandenbeld and said the victims came to testify in order to bring about "legitimate change."
'I was repulsed': Abuse survivor demands Liberal MP apologize after testimony 'hijacked' in chaotic House committee
MPs said they were 'disgusted' by the behaviour that drove two advocates for stopping violence against women to leave the parliamentary committee visibly shaken
An advocate for ending violence against women is calling on a Liberal MP to apologize after shutting down her testimony during a parliamentary committee Wednesday by turning the committee’s discussion into a partisan debate over abortion.
Instead of having the chance to share her story and the experiences other survivors who say the Canadian justice system has failed them, Cait Alexander says she left feeling disrespected and “abused.”
She then moved a motion to have the committee instead discuss another topic — abortion — even as the witnesses in the room yelled objections over her attempt to change the subject. Liberal and NDP members, who together hold a majority at committee, voted to pass the motion.
Last edited by chemgear; 07-31-2024 at 10:50 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to chemgear For This Useful Post:
I get that all parties try to push wedge issues but this was not the place or time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemgear
She then moved a motion to have the committee instead discuss another topic — abortion — even as the witnesses in the room yelled objections over her attempt to change the subject. Liberal and NDP members, who together hold a majority at committee, voted to pass the motion.
Little wonder why the NDP aren't gaining any support as the Liberals tank.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jacks For This Useful Post:
Jesus Christ. So Cait Alexander who is a Canadian but has to live in the US because of the threat of violence against her (guy is free and clear with the failure in Crown prosecution), travels back to testify at this committee only to face this gongshow.
You've got Anita Vandenbeld the Liberal MP (11:47) thanking the witness and then immediately throwing her under the bus, complaining about other theoretical witnesses and diverting over to the abortion rhetoric instead for political points.
You've got Leah Gazan the NDP MP grandstanding on and on about crazy #### like JD Vance, complaining not getting to talk first how it's an act of violence against her, and literally not stopping when being told that the witnesses had turned their backs (12:09) and then walked out (12:15). Keeps right on trucking with her personal complaints. Does not give any ####s about the witnesses or their personal testimony about violence against women.
Anna Roberts the Conservative MP having to apologize to the witnesses for what they are enduring.
No wonder the advocates were so frustrated. And my god, these people are our tax funded representatives?
