06-16-2023, 01:53 PM
|
#7101
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goriders
If your dollar is worth less that covers everyone using the dollar at any point in time.
“When we print money, the supply of money increases, demand for goods increases. If the supply of goods stays steady, but doesn't increase in line with demand, then prices increase. What you bought with $100 yesterday costs more than $100 today.”
This along with the impact of all of the energy taxes/policies making it more expensive trickles down to everything in the supply chain.
So everyone is poorer than they could be minus the above. The above are all policies and decisions directly made by the current federal government.
Let me know if this describes it well enough.
|
Not entirely wrong, but the idea that the supply of money has a direct 1 to 1 link to the rate of inflation is pretty flawed, almost as much so as the invisible hand. There are other things driving the economy, like idle capacity, savings, debt, import/exports...
I think you'd have a hard time arguing the money supply was even in the 3 for drivers of inflation.
|
|
|
06-16-2023, 01:58 PM
|
#7102
|
Franchise Player
|
Of course. But it’s a big contributing factor. Which is what he or she asked for.
Along with the endless social engineering consumption taxes.
Last edited by Goriders; 06-16-2023 at 02:02 PM.
|
|
|
06-16-2023, 02:08 PM
|
#7103
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: 1000 miles from nowhere
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by #-3
Not entirely wrong, but the idea that the supply of money has a direct 1 to 1 link to the rate of inflation is pretty flawed, almost as much so as the invisible hand. There are other things driving the economy, like idle capacity, savings, debt, import/exports...
I think you'd have a hard time arguing the money supply was even in the 3 for drivers of inflation.
|
Right.
But make no mistake, the liberal government spending is contributing to inflation. The deficit spending is undermining the goal of raising interest rates.
__________________
____________________________________________
|
|
|
06-16-2023, 02:28 PM
|
#7104
|
Franchise Player
|
Yeah, it totally makes sense to compare debt in nominal terms to 50-100 years ago, lol. Maybe look at gross debt to GDP (particularly the growth in % terms) and it paints a different picture:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GGGDTACAA188N
Debt to GDP more than doubled in the '80s, and they didn't have a crisis like COVID to deal with.
|
|
|
06-16-2023, 02:31 PM
|
#7105
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: 1000 miles from nowhere
|
No. The crisis at that time was Pierre Trudeau.
__________________
____________________________________________
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Doctorfever For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-16-2023, 02:34 PM
|
#7106
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: 1000 miles from nowhere
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius
Assuming he meant “inflation” rate, here is Canada vs Australia.

|
Interest rate meant interest rate. Nice deflection though.
Others in another thread would call you a ####ing moron. Luckily, we are better than that here.
__________________
____________________________________________
|
|
|
06-16-2023, 02:46 PM
|
#7107
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Shanghai
|
I totally understand people being upset and angry in response to feeling squeezed by inflation, but it's hardly a matter of political party. It's an issue bigger than Liberal vs. Conservative domestic politics and the causes are both systemic as well as a matter of response to crisis.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-16-2023, 03:00 PM
|
#7108
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goriders
Northern gateway, energy east, Petronas LNG plant.
|
Northern gateway’s proposal was cancelled by Trudeau’s government. Energy east was cancelled by TransCanada. Petronas’ LNG plant was cancelled by Petronas. TransCanada was also backing out of TMX and the government ended up buying it so financials aside one could argue that cancels out the only project you listed that was actually cancelled by Trudeau’s government.
Quote:
Reducing taxes encourages investment. So yes.
|
How does this lead to prosperity for those whom the added costs of the loss of those services outweighs the benefits of reduced taxes?
Quote:
He’s probably qualified to comment on business acumen whether you agree with his politics or not.
|
Do you believe his motive is to help others or himself?
|
|
|
06-16-2023, 03:27 PM
|
#7109
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Northern gateway’s proposal was cancelled by Trudeau’s government. Energy east was cancelled by TransCanada. Petronas’ LNG plant was cancelled by Petronas. TransCanada was also backing out of TMX and the government ended up buying it so financials aside one could argue that cancels out the only project you listed that was actually cancelled by Trudeau’s government.
How does this lead to prosperity for those whom the added costs of the loss of those services outweighs the benefits of reduced taxes?
Do you believe his motive is to help others or himself?
|
All of those projects were cancelled because trudeau moved the goalposts at the last minute.
You could probably add in europe coming looking for LNG earlier in the year and trudeau telling them there’s no business case. Here’s some hydrogen that you don’t want.
Then Germany signing big LNG deals with Qatar right after.
Apparently Qatar saw the business case. Unlike our village idiot.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Goriders For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-16-2023, 03:40 PM
|
#7110
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goriders
All of those projects were cancelled because trudeau moved the goalposts at the last minute.
|
Well now you’re moving the goalposts on what you previously stated. Is it even worth continuing this discussion?
|
|
|
06-16-2023, 03:58 PM
|
#7111
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goriders
Of course. But it’s a big contributing factor. Which is what he or she asked for.
Along with the endless social engineering consumption taxes.
|
What I asked for was evidence that what you are saying was correct and causal. There still hasn’t been any provided. I agree your logic could be what is happening but we don’t really know.
I’m not even sure that the argument that people are poorer today is even factual
Looking at the weekly average wage data for Canada and selecting 2015 for Trudeau’s election to 2022 one finds that wages are up 23%. Inflation over that period is 18%
Now I will fully note that this uses average wage not median wage (didn’t bother to check median) and I didn’t check any other dates than 2015 to 2022 and I didn’t double check the math. But this is what I meant when I said provide some evidence.
If you are claiming people are poorer what metric are you using to make that conclusion.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...101%2C20220101
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/re...on-calculator/
|
|
|
06-16-2023, 05:50 PM
|
#7112
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctorfever
Right.
But make no mistake, the liberal government spending is contributing to inflation. The deficit spending is undermining the goal of raising interest rates.
|
Canada represents ~2.5% of global government spending. And the CPC is saber rattling about cutting 4% of government expenditures. 0.1% of global government spending would have virtually no effect, especially when the trade balance and value of our currency would erase any of the local impacts you think we are gaining, and that's before you even start to think about down stream economic impacts and productivity gains that may or may not have come from that spending (for example without the covid supports, would we have seen massive layoffs, and the huge lags in re-training while the rest on the world boomed over the past two years).
I appreciate the logic, but at the end of the day the tipping point on this inflation run was a supply shock, and it continues to run because of ingrained expectations. If we had not kept the country liquid than it would have been harder to access goods and probably would have made the problem worse. At the same time when we are teettering on the edge of recession, cutting government spending is more likely to be a tipping point which will drive up deficits rather than rein them in, so it's a much more complex balancing act that you seem to be thinking. Unless you are willing to tax some of the record profits over the past 2 years, that might help with deficits, that's probably the simplest solution and really a lot of the advocates for rate increase cite the need to cool the labour market and that might be a more direct way of accomplishing that.
Last edited by #-3; 06-16-2023 at 05:52 PM.
|
|
|
06-16-2023, 05:55 PM
|
#7113
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: 1000 miles from nowhere
|
The deficit spending before and after the pandemic is why we have record debt and has contributed to inflation (how much is debatable). Nobody is saying there shouldn’t have been spending during the pandemic.
__________________
____________________________________________
|
|
|
06-16-2023, 06:13 PM
|
#7114
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctorfever
The deficit spending before and after the pandemic is why we have record debt and has contributed to inflation (how much is debatable). Nobody is saying there shouldn’t have been spending during the pandemic.
|
A lot, I just made 4 arguments you chose not to debate.
- The LPC doesn't control other countries spending or the trade balance.
- A lack of government spending might have been a drag on the private sector hurting the tax base and making the deficit worse
- A lack of spending may have worsened the supply crisis, worsening inflation when countries were competing over scarce goods.
- Maybe the problem isn't spending, but lack of taxes when corporation profits are at record levels
|
|
|
06-16-2023, 08:13 PM
|
#7115
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goriders
All of those projects were cancelled because trudeau moved the goalposts at the last minute.
You could probably add in europe coming looking for LNG earlier in the year and trudeau telling them there’s no business case. Here’s some hydrogen that you don’t want.
Then Germany signing big LNG deals with Qatar right after.
Apparently Qatar saw the business case. Unlike our village idiot.
|
TMX being purchased was Harpers fault. The regulatory process under Harpers government failed to meet the legal requirement of First Nations consultation and so the apprval was overturned by the courts. The liberal government could not give regulatory certainty to TMX so TMX was pulling out and the government stepped in.
I won’t debate the other ones but TMX should be a checkbox in Trudeau supporting oil. It may have been cheaper to just underwrite regulatory delays rather than buy the pipelines but the liberals got TMX built.
|
|
|
06-16-2023, 08:55 PM
|
#7116
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the middle
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
TMX being purchased was Harpers fault. The regulatory process under Harpers government failed to meet the legal requirement of First Nations consultation and so the apprval was overturned by the courts. The liberal government could not give regulatory certainty to TMX so TMX was pulling out and the government stepped in.
I won’t debate the other ones but TMX should be a checkbox in Trudeau supporting oil. It may have been cheaper to just underwrite regulatory delays rather than buy the pipelines but the liberals got TMX built.
|
Northern Gateway also didn’t meet conditions set by the Harper government. Trudeau officially cancelled it, but it was dead in the water long before then. Kinder Morgan never even released a cost estimate of the project after the 209 conditions were put on it.
|
|
|
06-16-2023, 10:43 PM
|
#7117
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goriders
All of those projects were cancelled because trudeau moved the goalposts at the last minute.
You could probably add in europe coming looking for LNG earlier in the year and trudeau telling them there’s no business case. Here’s some hydrogen that you don’t want.
Then Germany signing big LNG deals with Qatar right after.
Apparently Qatar saw the business case. Unlike our village idiot.
|
You know who didn't see a business case? Businesses. There's nothing stopping any business from doing it, except viability
https://financialpost.com/commoditie...anada-lng-plan
Quote:
But to reach the terminal gas would have to be transported thousands of kilometers from western Canada, requiring new pipeline capacity through Canadian provinces and northeastern U.S. states that in the past have resisted fossil fuel development.
“Following a study carried out by the company, it was determined to not continue with the Saint John liquefaction project as the tolls associated to it made it uneconomical,” a Repsol spokesperson said in a statement.
Last summer, Repsol chief executive Josu Jon Imaz said the company would need a buyer to commit to a 15- to 20-year offtake agreement for the gas, as well as new pipeline infrastructure and tolling agreements to get the gas to the Atlantic coast.
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-16-2023, 10:46 PM
|
#7118
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: 1000 miles from nowhere
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by #-3
A lot, I just made 4 arguments you chose not to debate.
- The LPC doesn't control other countries spending or the trade balance.
- A lack of government spending might have been a drag on the private sector hurting the tax base and making the deficit worse
- A lack of spending may have worsened the supply crisis, worsening inflation when countries were competing over scarce goods.
- Maybe the problem isn't spending, but lack of taxes when corporation profits are at record levels
|
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...wing-billions/
Quote:
Fiscal and monetary policy are related. The key to untangling the current mess is acknowledging that the government cannot borrow more without causing more inflation.
The Bank of Canada bears some responsibility for the problem. It waited a full year from the breakout of inflation, finally raising interest rates from 0.25 per cent to 0.5 per cent last March. Whether the bank’s slowness to act made inflation worse is a topic of debate, but it surely did not help.
Other popular arguments do not work. Supply chain shocks raise one price relative to another, not all prices and wages together. Energy prices have risen and fallen many times without sparking inflation. Greed has been with us always.
|
Explained pretty well here.
__________________
____________________________________________
|
|
|
06-16-2023, 11:33 PM
|
#7119
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctorfever
|
This article is 8 months out of date, misses the fact that a lot of base commodity prices have already significantly fallen off their peak, and that the reductions have started to trickle into markets, which was clear for anyone to see happening if they were involved in any of those markets 8 months ago.
2x4s went from $3.25 CAD to $13 CAD to $3.75 CAD
Oil went from $55 USD to $110 USD to $70 USD,
Steel went from $650 US to $1900 US and is hovering around $850 US now.
Increases almost all driven by shortages, that were caused by prolonged outages and low ball forecasts.
I'm sure I could find many more examples, but to pick out an article from the height of the supply shock that says because it happened across an array of industries it's not a supply shock is kind of ignoring a heap of evidence, and the numbers were so big that they basically dwarfed Canadian monetary policy to the point that it didn't matter.
This article also cites some of the other impacts
Quote:
Some inflation is imported from the U.S. When that country experiences inflation, Canada must follow or adapt to a higher exchange rate.
|
|
|
|
06-19-2023, 10:43 AM
|
#7120
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goriders
All of those projects were cancelled because trudeau moved the goalposts at the last minute.
You could probably add in europe coming looking for LNG earlier in the year and trudeau telling them there’s no business case. Here’s some hydrogen that you don’t want.
Then Germany signing big LNG deals with Qatar right after.
Apparently Qatar saw the business case. Unlike our village idiot.
|
Petronas LNG wasn't cancelled because of federal goalpost moving. There are primarily two reasons it was cancelled:
1- protests by a small group of indigenous protesters, which occasionally included violence
2- Petronus not performing environmental due diligence on the proposed jetty over the endangered sea grass that is basically a hatchery and habitat for many aquatic species in the area
The Canadian government had nothing to do with that.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:06 AM.
|
|