# Anyone worried?



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

Anyone worried that their pension saving are going to be taxed out of existence because of this? And how did Turkey make money???


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Maybe a bit overtly through increased taxation. But more likely the bulk of loss will come in the form of inflation being higher than planned for.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Sorry, this graph doesn't actually say much.
It would be really easy to hike up the tax rate and make things look better.

I do think that the Trudeau Liberals have been reckless, but this graph does a poor job of communicating that.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

No, not worried. Not happy about the deficit but on the other hand people need a helping hand.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

If I had hired a manager to run my corporation and it was run like this country, he/she would be replaced due to poor performance. Why is Trudeau still in office ?


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

afulldeck said:


> Anyone worried that their pension saving are going to be taxed out of existence because of this? And how did Turkey make money???
> 
> 
> View attachment 20754


 Trudeau had to be paid off, no one in their right mind would build internment camps. Trudeau is intentionally destroying the middle class to try & bring the great reset to Canada. I do think it is prudent to get your money out of Canada. The psychopaths dictators are drunk on power tripping. If you are not good @ being a good puppet they are taking your money. The trend is to get worse & history has shown the psychopaths will not reason & the only way this will be resolved is with blood & the streets.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Sorry, this graph doesn't actually say much.
> It would be really easy to hike up the tax rate and make things look better.
> 
> I do think that the Trudeau Liberals have been reckless, but this graph does a poor job of communicating that.


Not so easy, The rich will just leave. Can only hike taxes so much then those doing the hiking are going to be hung in the streets.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

ian said:


> No, not worried. Not happy about the deficit but on the other hand people need a helping hand.


Same thought from me. This is like a war time situation and large deficit spending seems like the right move in current circumstances.

Remember the huge deficits Harper ran before and after 2008? The Conservatives actually ran a deficit before the crisis hit, and it it became a much larger deficit _after_ the crisis. Well this economic contraction is far worse. It pretty much registers off the scales, far worse than the GDP contraction of 2008 and I believe it's the worst in recorded history, or heading in that direction.

Thankfully we don't have Harper (or someone like him) at the helm right now. Liberals are the right people to handle this kind of budget. Conservatives have a terrible fiscal track record and just are not a fiscally prudent. You people whining about Trudeau should look at some history:



> To begin with, here's an interesting question: How many Conservative Prime Ministers in all of the 20th century presented Canada with balanced budgets?
> 
> Answer: Only one! It was Robert Borden in 1912. Like Mr. Harper, he inherited a surplus from his Liberal predecessor (Wilfrid Laurier) and, again like Mr. Harper, it was quickly gone.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Think about the fact that 20% of the total economic activity of the entire country was Government borrowing. 
That's likely just federal.
What about provinces, cities, authorities, crown corporations etc?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The graph shows that most of the deficit is discretionary spending for the pandemic, and Canada's systemic deficit is in line with other countries.

It should also be noted that all the countries on the graph have systemic deficits.

The graph also doesn't show the other side of the ledger which is the growth of assets and wealth as a counter balance to the deficit.

It is like owning a $1 million dollar home and a $1 million dollar cottage and obsessing about the $500,000 mortgage debt.

As long as the debt can be easily serviced, which in Canada it is less now than it was before the pandemic spending............there is no looming crisis.

The Trudeau government was wise to refinance the debt into longer terms and lower interest rates, to bring the servicing costs lower.

The pandemic spending was also passed unanimously by the Parliament. The Liberals know what they are doing.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

With historic low interest rates, and the need for employment stimulus, now is the perfect time to increase spending on badly needed infrastructure.

It will never be less costly to build hospitals, schools, nursing homes, roads, bridges, affordable housing, water treatment plants.......etc, than it is today.

As the farmers say.......make hay while the sun shines.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> As long as the debt can be easily serviced, which in Canada it is less now than it was before the pandemic spending............there is no looming crisis.


Actually, overextending yourself while saying "but I can afford the payments" is the crisis.

We're taking on generational level debt, what happens when we get our next crisis in 10 years or so?
To top it off, they're looking at crazy economically destructive ideas like UBI, and massive government daycare program, which will only serve the wealthy with good stable jobs.

I do think we need a better pharmacare plan, but I'm afraid that government dental will destroy that system.


----------



## scorpion_ca (Nov 3, 2014)

Mechanic said:


> If I had hired a manager to run my corporation and it was run like this country, he/she would be replaced due to poor performance. Why is Trudeau still in office ?


Trudeau is way better than the other puppets we got now.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

We have been here before. The Mulroney mess left us with huge debt, huge deficit, and a CPP mess. It took time but Paul Martin is credited with turning this around.

We in Canada have the ability to generate money. Our economy is basically strong and we will recover quickly. 

The Government is in a very difficult position. It is exceedingly easy to criticize either the amount of assistance, the nature of it it, or indeed the rollout.

We are not ready for an election. The Conservatives certainly do not want one. The latest polls are not in their favour. They have not had time to define Erin O'Toole in the minds of the voters. The Opposition can make claim after claim secure in the knowledge that they are in no danger of actually forming a Government at the moment.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Trudeau is spending unwisely and refuses any scrutiny. If there was no unethical spending, why not let Canadians know how well he is spending our money? He is as transparent as Trump on matters of money. Trust me does not work in politics.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The irony is that the Conservatives supported all the spending bills and then criticize the spending.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

The Conservatives did in fact support the spending bills.

Bottom line for me is that both parties are similar. They will do anything to get elected and stay elected. I certainly do not think that the Liberals are black hats and the Conservatives are white hats.

They are both very cloudy, muddy, grey hats. Nor do I believe that punted either party when they are in power will greatly alter our democracy or our economy.

People have very unrealistic expectations. As an example, Stephen Harper said quite clearly in three elections that he was not in favour of changing the abortion legislation or the gay marriage legislation (this would be relatively impossible). Yet, by the end of his third term there was a large number of social conservatives who were upset/disappointed with his Government for not doing exactly what he said he would not do. Go figure. Voters are a very fickle bunch prone to wild expectations.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

ian said:


> ...
> 
> Bottom line for me is that both parties are similar. They will do anything to get elected and stay elected. I certainly do not think that the Liberals are black hats and the Conservatives are white hats.
> 
> ...


That captures quite nicely my reason for not voting since I was about age 25. Complete waste of time.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

ian said:


> Bottom line for me is that both parties are similar. They will do anything to get elected and stay elected. I certainly do not think that the Liberals are black hats and the Conservatives are white hats.


They are somewhat similar, but there are notable differences.

Conservatives are more committed to giving tax cuts / tax breaks which target the wealthy: things like cutting GST, income splitting, Canadian corporation tax loopholes. So you might call it "stimulus" if you want, but it flows to the wealthy while it runs up deficits. The Conservatives serve the interests of the rich, especially business owners.

The wealthy don't need that kind of extra help. Harper's aggressive cuts to the GST were bad for the country (but great for the rich). It hurt the country's finances very badly.

IMO the Conservatives are following the Republican playbook. When you hear them whipping up anti-Trudeau anger, pumping up western & rural pride, and encouraging xenophobes these are really just manipulative techniques to motivate *poorer* people to vote their way. That's required because you realistically can't get enough voters to actually support the interests of the rich, since the rich are a minority of the population. Republicans do the exact same thing.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The Conservatives also show fake concern for oil & gas, fake concern for Albertans, fake concern about "scary immigration", and fake concern for Israel.

If Conservatives really cared about Alberta and O&G so much, Harper would have made dramatic changes during his his nearly 10 years in power. They did nothing!

It's all fake. The only real interest the Conservative have is helping wealthy business people and the rich. So while rural people and Albertans suffer, the Conservatives string them along, manipulating them and encouraging them to be angry.

And now when Conservatives whine about deficit spending, this is all fake as well. They would happily run up even larger deficits while giving some big handouts to the rich. At least the Liberal+NDP partnership will do this more equitably.

It's a successful tactic, as the Republicans have been doing this for 30-40 years and poor people seem to never catch on.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> They are somewhat similar, but there are notable differences.
> 
> Conservatives are more committed to giving tax cuts / tax breaks which target the wealthy: things like cutting GST, income splitting, Canadian corporation tax loopholes. So you might call it "stimulus" if you want, but it flows to the wealthy while it runs up deficits. The Conservatives serve the interests of the rich, especially business owners.
> 
> ...


I of course see it differently.

Not taking money from people should be the default position, you should only seize assets when it's truly important. Far too much money is wasted.

Liberals want to tax and spend like crazy. They're literally giving away hundreds of millions of tax dollars to all sorts.
They routinely give millions or hundreds of millions in handouts to large corporations, piles to friends and families, foreign countries. Then with the pandemic they gave billions more to some Canadians and not to others. It was completely arbitrary and unfair. Sure he sent a few thousand to some families, but not to others. Let alone the millions he tried to give to his friends.

The real problem is the the Liberals don't even pretend to care about people or fairness.
They really honestly don't believe that people have a right to their own labour, and we should all be slaves to the state.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I miss Harper a lot.









Des millions pour un ex-député


La firme de l’ancien député libéral Frank Baylis profite des retombées d’un contrat de 237 millions$.




www.journaldequebec.com





English version









Trudeau gave $237-million contract benefiting Liberal buddy’s company


The $237 million was given to FTI Professional Grade, a company that was only established seven days before. It's website said the company had two employees.




www.westernstandardonline.com


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

It’s amazing to watch two of my friends get wealthier (kudos To them, both entrepreneurs) and more conservative in their beliefs, at the same time.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Money172375 said:


> It’s amazing to watch two of my friends get wealthier (kudos To them, both entrepreneurs) and more conservative in their beliefs, at the same time.


Well for many people, money money money is all that matters. Conservatives primarily exist to serve the rich, so it's natural that many wealthy people will support the Conservatives.

I'll say it again... the other stories about fiscal conservatism, caution about budgets, concern for rural people, concern for Albertans, it's all fake. This is just marketing. In fact many rural people and down-and-out Albertans will probably benefit more under NDP policies.


----------



## Barwelle (Feb 23, 2011)

worried about pension being taxed? I'm worried about having a pension at all... my premier wants to detach from the CPP and create an alberta pension plan. mismanaged by AIMCo, of course.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Barwelle said:


> worried about pension being taxed? I'm worried about having a pension at all... my premier wants to detach from the CPP and create an alberta pension plan. mismanaged by AIMCo, of course.


Were Aimco the ones which lost billions in amateur volatility bets this yet? Searching... yes, they were. They lost $4 billion and became the laughingstock of the investment banking world after making highly complex derivative bets which "blew up".

I share your worry @Barwelle . Hopefully Alberta stays with the CPP and gets additional help from Ottawa as they get through this storm.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Well for many people, money money money is all that matters. Conservatives primarily exist to serve the rich, so it's natural that many wealthy people will support the Conservatives.
> 
> I'll say it again... the other stories about fiscal conservatism, caution about budgets, concern for rural people, concern for Albertans, it's all fake. This is just marketing. In fact many rural people and down-and-out Albertans will probably benefit more under NDP policies.


Conservatives are concerned about the fundamentals of society so that wealth can be generated and we can be more prosperous.

Liberals are greedy socialists who just want to redistribute the fruits of others labours, and don't care about wealth creation.


----------



## TomF (Jul 26, 2011)

I'm worried about _everything_ being taxed and the economy being killed. What happens if hospitals have to shut down because there's no money left to fund them? Cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc. kill people too. How about all the people who put off going to a hospital because they didn't want to risk being in contact with Covid people, and it turns out they have serious problems that are more dangerous than the _risk_ of Covid? What about all the people who may have troubles feeding themselves? Covid kills--maybe--1% of 1%; starvation kills 100%.

How about schools, colleges, universities that may have to shut down, perhaps terminating the graduation of several years' worth of cohorts?

Here's the law of unintended consequences starting to play out.

This is what happens when _everything_ is driven by a single issue. Sheesh! The talking heads keep spewing out garbage about how we have to look at the big picture--but they are the ones not looking at the big picture.

We hope this virus dies out soon, but I keep thinking about something said by a character (Dr. Ian Malcolm) in the movie, "Jurassic Park": "Nature always finds a way." (Or something to that effect. ) The point applicable to this situation is, I think we are wrong to put our faith in scientists who promise to have a vaccine within a year. Not going to happen, so let's stop acting like it will. We need to make decisions now under the assumption that a vaccine will _not_ be available in the near future.

So, what are we going to do? Are we going to maintain measures that are worse than the virus itself?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Conservatives are concerned about getting elected and staying elected. Really, hardly much difference between Liberal and Conservative. It is strictly our gang and your gang. They steal each other's platforms on a regular basis. Whatever works.

Their respective card carrying members may have different perspectives. But in the back rooms, the PMO, or the Opposition Leader's Office, the movers and shakers within each party the goal is the same. And from what I have seen over the years from both parties, any means justifies the end...to get elected and stay in power. To think otherwise would be a little naive.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Eder said:


> I miss Harper a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No country was buying ventilators for $10,000. There was a global competition for them and prices soared from $20,000 US to $50,000 US per unit.

Do the Conservatives actually believe that Trump would have allowed a US company to ship 10,000 ventilators to Canada for $10,000 each?

The US was stopping shipments of PPE at the CAN/US border. Trudeau had to practically "smuggle" PPE out of China from a nondescript warehouse.

In a way I hope there is a full inquiry into it now. It will reveal the Conservatives for who they have become under their current leaders.

But I would rather Trudeau declare a non confidence vote, call an election and let Canadians decide.









Cuomo Says Ventilators Cost $50,000—Up From $20,000—As States Compete For The Devices


Only one New York county is free of COVID-19 cases, Cuomo said.




www.forbes.com


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Michelle Rempell tabled a motion to investigate all companies that supplied Canada with emergency COVID supplies, among a litany of other things.

It is reported the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc will support the motion.

Trudeau should make it a non-confidence vote, call an election and let Canadians decide.

The Conservatives just want to create chaos in the middle of a pandemic. They want to fiddle while Canada burns.

Erin O'Toole has enabled the right wing element of the Conservatives and has already lost control of his caucus.









Feds face new opposition push for deep dive into COVID-19 response


A day after surviving a confidence vote, the Liberals are facing a new Conservative challenge in proposing another committee deep dive into the federal government's COVID-19 response, but this showdown isn't likely to end in a snap election.



www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

What do people think would have happened if there was no lock downs ?

Would the world just continue on with the virus running rampant and increasing numbers of people becoming sick and needing emergency care ?

What if the doctors and nurses became sick and couldn't treat the patients ? What if the police and paramedics got sick ?

What if the service workers became sick and couldn't deliver goods and services, food and utilities to Canadians ?

What if the nursing home staff all got sick and couldn't care for the residents ? What if workers simply decided not to expose themselves to the virus ?

The lockdowns were designed to enable the above essential workers to keep Canada as safe as possible for all Canadians.

The COVID was and is bad enough with the lock downs. I think without them it would have been a disaster 100 times worse than we are dealing with now.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Getting elected is always job 1.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The worst day in leadership is always better than the best day in opposition.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

As the OP of this thread, I was hoping for some rational thoughts around finances and how to prepare family, friends, for the long term rather than political bickering. *Sortition* to form government can't come fast or soon enough. Surely even a 10 year old knows you cannot spend more than you generate.....without consequences....


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

afulldeck said:


> *Sortition* to form government can't come fast or soon enough. Surely even a 10 year old knows you cannot spend more than you generate.....without consequences....


I take it from your language that you would support the Conservatives.

The Conservatives had inherited a budget *surplus* of $14 billion in 2006 which they quickly turned into a deficit. During this incredibly long 10 year stretch in government, the Conservatives ran mostly deficits except for the final year. And no it wasn't just because of the 2008 crisis. Harper actually started running a deficit before the 2008 crisis hit.

You said you want a chance to elect someone new. Who do you want to elect? Surely not the Conservatives, the party of chronic deficits and poor fiscal management.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I take it from your language that you would support the Conservatives.
> 
> The Conservatives had inherited a budget *surplus* of $14 billion in 2006 which they quickly turned into a deficit. During this incredibly long 10 year stretch in government, the Conservatives ran mostly deficits except for the final year. And no it wasn't just because of the 2008 crisis. Harper actually started running a deficit before the 2008 crisis hit.
> 
> You said you want a chance to elect someone new. Who do you want to elect? Surely not the Conservatives, the party of chronic deficits and poor fiscal management.


Trudeau doesn't even understand why a balanced budget is a good idea, and he shows no signs of ever making a budget at all, let alone a responsible budget.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

I worry about the old age security. I know its small but i count on it for retirement and thats not for 10-15 years! I don't know if i should count on it. cpp seems healthy.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

https://thedailycoin.org/2020/10/06/world-economic-forum-8predictions-for-the-world-in-2030-video/

They are destroying the middle class for the great reset. They want us to own nothing. Above video produced by the world economic forum.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

james4beach said:


> I take it from your language that you would support the Conservatives.


Sortition: Government by casting lots-no professional politicians-no parties. Only the unlucky few who draw the short straws would have to govern. That what I support. We do it for juries, might as well do it for the entire government. Maybe we would get better financial decisions. 



> They are destroying the middle class for the great reset. They want us to own nothing. Above video produced by the world economic forum.


Interesting if not stupefying video. What is with the attack on meat? Does the Seventh-day-Adventists lead the world economic forum?


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

The attack on meat is because it has been shown to be healthier both for humans and for the environment when less meat is eaten. 

I liked their vision but I think they're a bit overly optimistic, that's only 10 years away.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Professional politicians are good. There are certain skills and experience needed to be an effective government. The same goes for the public service in general ... these are systems that one has to develop expertise in.

Look at the disaster you get when you put some _nobody_ like Trump in charge. He doesn't even know the basics of government and his mind is on celebrity obsessions like status and loyalty. He has totally mismanaged the US government, causing destruction to many big institutions.

Trump's mismanagement has caused tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. If he continues mismanaging the COVID response, there could be the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people on his hands.

Great example of how important it is to have someone qualified and competent in government roles. You can't just put some _random dude_ in charge ... it's very dangerous. The deaths that Trump is responsible for are kind of like casualties of a mismanaged war, with a moron in charge of the military.

And here in our country, I only want skilled, professional politicians in important roles. That means someone who likely has a background in law or public administration, plus some years working in the political system.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

Spudd said:


> The attack on meat is because it has been shown to be healthier both for humans and for the environment when less meat is eaten.


Nonsense. Humans have eaten meat for 2.6 million years or more...became farmers only 10,000-15,000 years ago. Humans evolved eating meat. Evolution doesn't move that fast. The reason there are so many people with metabolic syndrome and T2 diabetes is; grains, sugar, and starchy plants. Removing that food source will only end in disaster for many.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

afulldeck said:


> Interesting if not stupefying video. What is with the attack on meat? Does the Seventh-day-Adventists lead the world economic forum?


 James 

Power has gone to their heads they think they can control the climate & eliminate CO2 which only makes up .04% of the atmosphere LOL They know their agenda would never pass if voted on so they are trying to force it on us. I do not think they will succeed though they are doing a lot of damage.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Professional politicians are good. There are certain skills and experience needed to be an effective government. The same goes for the public service in general ... these are systems that one has to develop expertise in.
> 
> And here in our country, I only want skilled, professional politicians in important roles. That means someone who likely has a background in law or public administration, plus some years working in the political system.


The problem with professional politicians is they see everything as a political problem.
They also think since they're an expert at politics, they're an expert at other stuff, stuff they don't understand.

Many see them as the ultimate national manager, and if they just did better everything would be good.

The thing is they try to run the country like some sort of Dilbert gag, rather then letting "their people" just do their job.

Today we have a problem where our "leaders" are trying to use politics to solve problems that they don't understand, and might not even be problems.


----------



## Karlhungus (Oct 4, 2013)

james4beach said:


> I take it from your language that you would support the Conservatives.
> 
> The Conservatives had inherited a budget *surplus* of $14 billion in 2006 which they quickly turned into a deficit. During this incredibly long 10 year stretch in government, the Conservatives ran mostly deficits except for the final year. And no it wasn't just because of the 2008 crisis. Harper actually started running a deficit before the 2008 crisis hit.
> 
> You said you want a chance to elect someone new. Who do you want to elect? Surely not the Conservatives, the party of chronic deficits and poor fiscal management.


I wish Harper was at the helm right now. He would weather this storm far better then T2. You talk of Harpers poor fiscal record, yet he did in fact run budget surpluses. The deficits he ran - including the big one of 56Billion is a drop in the bucket to what Trudeau is doing. Canada was having a streak of great growth with record low unemployment yet Trudeau was running deficits. Not sure in what universe you think Harper was worse then Trudeau


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

afulldeck said:


> As the OP of this thread, I was hoping for some rational thoughts around finances and how to prepare family, friends, for the long term rather than political bickering ...


Not sure what sort of info - beyond financial literacy, having an emergency fund, investing and buying you can afford instead of keeping up with the Jones (which is already available from multiple sources) would be relevant.

As for preparing family/friends, my experience when talking about it is that a small number engage and the rest are going to ignore what was said or will change the subject.




afulldeck said:


> ... *Sortition* to form government can't come fast or soon enough. Surely even a 10 year old knows you cannot spend more than you generate.....without consequences....


I guess you haven't noticed that many are spending $1.58 for each dollar earned and how debut has mushroomed, right?


https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/consumer-debt-statscan-1.5720402



If I understand your description of Sortition - are you really sure that people who are convinced there purchase is okay because they can afford "$X a week" with no concern about what they are paying or how it fits within their income will make better financial decisions? How about those who respond to financial basics with "it's complication, beyond me and I have to trust my loyal bank rep"?

I have seen some really easy to fix financial mistakes made by otherwise quite bright co-workers.


Cheers


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

Eclectic12 said:


> I guess you haven't noticed that many are spending $1.58 for each dollar earned and how debut has mushroomed, right?
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/consumer-debt-statscan-1.5720402


Oh I noticed. Its a major problem and its extremely sad. The hardest part of the problem is that those who do work hard to keep solvent, spend below their needs and save are punished for those that don't. 



Eclectic12 said:


> If I understand your description of Sortition - are you really sure that people who are convinced there purchase is okay because they can afford "$X a week" with no concern about what they are paying or how it fits within their income will make better financial decisions? How about those who respond to financial basics with "it's complication, beyond me and I have to trust my loyal bank rep"?


No I am not convinced with your strawman example would end in better financial decisions. But is it worse than the current situation? I would rather have someone with no political skeletons, no base to satisfy, no agenda, to decided because they might make better ethical and financial decisions. That little 'might' is called hope. The current professional politician have made a mockery of democracy. And democracy can denigrate to tyranny quickly. Those who have read Plato will remember that the tyrannical man is the son of democracy. Where the father (democracy) is not lawless, the son (tyrant or mob) does indulge unnecessary desires. (Ridding meat in the diet, proroguing government, building a wall whether T2 or Trump--they are taking democracy from its roots away in unnecessary desires.) All that to say, it will not be today but maybe in 5 or 10 years...but the results are not going to be good. 



Eclectic12 said:


> I have seen some really easy to fix financial mistakes made by otherwise quite bright co-workers.


Your right, knowing the right thing and doing the right thing doesn't always align.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

afulldeck said:


> ... No I am not convinced with your strawman example would end in better financial decisions.


What have I misrepresented that makes it a strawman example?

All I'm saying is there's a lot of financial ignorance in the general public that would likely be in play for the lot casting, jury style gov't decision making for financial policy.
I'm not so sure that removing the bad parts of politicians automatically means better decisions.




afulldeck said:


> ... Your right, knowing the right thing and doing the right thing doesn't always align.


There's that for those that know the right thing but there's also a lot of the public who don't know and/or aren't interested in figuring out the right thing (financially speaking).

Cheers


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

Eclectic12 said:


> What have I misrepresented that makes it a strawman example?


You didn't misrepresent anything. I called it a straw man, because financial ignorance in the general public is not different than financial blissful ignorance displayed by professional politicians. Er.....let me take that back, professional politician are worse because their decision are not based on is this good for the country but rather base on agendas, skeletons, and vanity projects. 



Eclectic12 said:


> All I'm saying is there's a lot of financial ignorance in the general public that would likely be in play for the lot casting, jury style gov't decision making for financial policy.
> I'm not so sure that removing the bad parts of politicians automatically means better decisions.


So in the final outcome you could be right. But we as a country have yet to test Sortition out. It may work well, it may not. But the population at large has shown itself to be tired of the current system. 



Eclectic12 said:


> There's that for those that know the right thing but there's also a lot of the public who don't know and/or aren't interested in figuring out the right thing (financially speaking).


Yes and those that aren't interested are culpable. On the one hand, they are immediately damaging their person/family situation and on the other hand, they are extending that damage to others (who may be doing the right things) by increased taxation that should not have needed to happen.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

afulldeck said:


> Anyone worried that their pension saving are going to be taxed out of existence because of this?


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^🤣


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

For those of you who are worried about Canadian stimulus programs and payments to citizens:

Were you equally concerned when the government and central bank(s) repeatedly paid billions, and even trillions (in US), to entities such as banks (2007-2008), then provided aggressive QE stimulus measures pretty much whole time over the last 11 years?

The US Federal Reserve balance sheet expanded by $3.6 TRILLION since the 2007 handouts started
The Bank of Canada balance sheet expanded by $350 BILLION since 2007 plus billions more at CMHC

(Another thing to remember here is that the US Federal Reserve is helping fund the whole world, so Canada benefits from that $3.6 trillion of stimulus)

The stimulus over the last few years was largely on the central bank's balance sheet, but all of that results in a hidden tax as well. It's not much different other than a sleight of hand of where the balance sheet sits. The QE and asset rescues of 2008 boosted asset values tremendously and helped the rich, with very little benefit to anyone else.

Did all that stimulus and burden on the future worry you as well? Or are you only worried about the current phase of stimulus which (for once) is actually paying cash out to regular citizens.

Here's the reality. Stimulus money has been pumped into the economy non-stop since 2007/2008, and it was widely celebrated by conservatives and the ultra rich (because it helped them the most). It was very strongly celebrated by American Republicans and Trump. And early this year, the Bank of Canada rapidly printed hundreds of billions of $, almost exactly on par with the new government's spending deficit.

I don't recall hearing any whining when the Bank of Canada bought up all those assets. So why are conservatives suddenly whining so much about an almost identical amount being paid out in stimulus & spending?

The answer ... instead of just helping the rich, this time it's being spread more broadly, including to the poor. Cry me a river.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> What do people think would have happened if there was no lock downs ?
> 
> Would the world just continue on with the virus running rampant and increasing numbers of people becoming sick and needing emergency care ?
> 
> ...


Why float fear mongering "what if's" instead of looking at the actual numbers?

If you're 50 or under and healthy the survival rate is greater than 99.9%. I'm pretty sure most professions can survive losing 0.1% of their staff.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Apparently there is strong global demand for Canadian provincial bonds, described in this article.

It shows why global interest rates matter. Europeans look at German bunds yielding -0.6% (negative) and ask where they can get higher yields for not too much risk. When they look around the world, they see Canada and provincial bonds with the elevated yields.

We're a strong, stable country with a good reputation, and global capital therefore helps fund our provincial borrowing. People are right to complain that the debts are becoming huge, but there is also _enormous appetite_ for that debt.

The actions of the ECB, BOJ, US Fed and Bank of England are all helping Canada (federal and provinces) borrow money for very, very cheap. When our government entities can borrow the money at only 1% or 2% yield (equal to inflation, aka FREE money) and use that to fund programs and infrastructure which employ people, invest in the future, and/or prevent lives from being destroyed .... that's a good deal.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

afulldeck said:


> Nonsense. Humans have eaten meat for 2.6 million years or more...became farmers only 10,000-15,000 years ago. Humans evolved eating meat. Evolution doesn't move that fast. The reason there are so many people with metabolic syndrome and T2 diabetes is; grains, sugar, and starchy plants. Removing that food source will only end in disaster for many.


I kind of agree with you. When I cut back on grains, sugar, and starch, I felt a heck of a lot better. Way more energy, needed less sleep, started losing weight too without feeling hunger. Paleo really works for me. Meat, eggs, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and fruit.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

Pluto said:


> I kind of agree with you. When I cut back on grains, sugar, and starch, I felt a heck of a lot better. Way more energy, needed less sleep, started losing weight too without feeling hunger. Paleo really works for me. Meat, eggs, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and fruit.


I have a younger family member who always exercised, was fit, proper BMI, never overweight was always strict diet of eating which was high-carb, low fat diet and he ended up with quad bypass and having T2 diabetes a few years back. He had absolutely no symptoms and is very lucky to be alive. When that happen, I spent two years researching, reading and studying this area. Its clear to me the food guide is completely nuts and inappropriate for most since more and more people are becoming unknowingly insulin resistance & or hyperinsulinemia.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

afulldeck said:


> The reason there are so many people with metabolic syndrome and T2 diabetes is; *grains, sugar, and starchy plants*.





Pluto said:


> When I cut back on grains, sugar, and starch, I felt a heck of a lot better. Way more energy, needed less sleep, started losing weight too without feeling hunger. Paleo really works for me. Meat, eggs, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and fruit.


I want to make sure I'm understanding what you guys wrote here. You're saying that it's best to avoid grains, sugar, and starchy plants. Does that mean avoiding stuff like corn & potatoes?

From what I understand, simple carbs (sugar) are the stuff you really need to avoid.









Simple Carbohydrates vs. Complex Carbohydrates


You may have heard that eating complex carbohydrates is better than eating simple carbs. But why? And if it’s so important to know, why don’t nutrition labels tell you if the carbohydrate content is simple or complex? We explain the importance of carbohydrates and how to identify simple carbs...




www.healthline.com


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

james4beach said:


> I want to make sure I'm understanding what you guys wrote here. You're saying that it's best to avoid grains, sugar, and starchy plants. Does that mean avoiding stuff like corn & potatoes?
> 
> From what I understand, simple carbs (sugar) are the stuff you really need to avoid.
> 
> ...


Yes.


----------



## BC Eddie (Feb 2, 2014)

Prairie Guy said:


> Why float fear mongering "what if's" instead of looking at the actual numbers?
> 
> If you're 50 or under and healthy the survival rate is greater than 99.9%. I'm pretty sure most professions can survive losing 0.1% of their staff.


The key point being "if you're 50 or under AND HEALTHY'

On the other hand the link below shows if your 20 years old, significantly obese with Diabetes you have the age equivalency of a 72 year old.

So no worries if your young and healthy but if your not than take this seriously,





__





Covid-19 Medical Risk Assessment – Alama






alama.org.uk


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Basically no functional difference between "complex carbs" and simple carbs. Sugar is bad in excess because the fructose part of sucrose can only be metabolized by the liver, and the liver can only process so much per day. Too much leads to non alcoholic fatty liver disease. Excess sugar leads to foie grasification of your liver.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Basically no functional difference between "complex carbs" and simple carbs. Sugar is bad in excess because the fructose part of sucrose can only be metabolized by the liver, and the liver can only process so much per day. Too much leads to non alcoholic fatty liver disease. Excess sugar leads to foie grasification of your liver.


But doesn't a complex carb get metabolized much more gradually and evenly? Is that not better for the body?

Seems to me there is a notable difference between those two kinds of carbs


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

james4beach said:


> But doesn't a complex carb get metabolized much more gradually and evenly? Is that not better for the body?
> 
> Seems to me there is a notable difference between those two kinds of carbs


Na....its just a hockey stick effect with various handle lengths, the blade effects are virtually the same when they happen to people who are insulin resistant. Simple carbs are molecules of one or two sugars bound together, whereas complex carbs/starches are chains of sugars that can be tens of thousands of sugars long and with fiber makes them longer. However when complex carbs are broken down (during digestion) they are broken down to simple sugars in time--- hence glycemic index. But this is simply the "red-dress effect". If your insulin resistant (and over time many people are) you have a harder and hard time processing it.


----------



## Lenticular (Mar 18, 2017)

nobleea said:


> Maybe a bit overtly through increased taxation. But more likely the bulk of loss will come in the form of inflation being higher than planned for.


A lot of this debt will supposedly be paid down with an improving economy from 2021 and beyond. Good luck with that.


----------



## rl1983 (Jun 17, 2015)

Lenticular said:


> A lot of this debt will supposedly be paid down with an improving economy from 2021 and beyond. Good luck with that.


LOL


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

rl1983 said:


> LOL


ROTFLOL....


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Lenticular said:


> A lot of this debt will supposedly be paid down with an improving economy from 2021 and beyond. Good luck with that.


Wait, I don't understand. You don't think the economy will improve in the following years?

Hope you're not investing in stocks then.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

james4beach said:


> Wait, I don't understand. You don't think the economy will improve in the following years?
> 
> Hope you're not investing in stocks then.


Don't conflate two issues: improved economy vs debt. Even while the economy improves, the debt will get worse. Politicians just can't help themselves.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

People don't understand the difference between sovereign and household debt. They are completely different for several key reasons.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

sags said:


> People don't understand the difference between sovereign and household debt. They are completely different for several key reasons.


MMT? I'm a follower. It's an uphill battle with public education though. It'll be like Einstein trying to teach Newton about gravity.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

afulldeck said:


> Anyone worried that their pension saving are going to be taxed out of existence because of this? And how did Turkey make money???


Worried about what? Government debt and deficits? All the major economies in the world have debts and deficits. The countries that don't I don't think you really want to live there.

For as long as I can remember, Canada has always been in debt. For just a short time in 2005, we had a surplus until the 2008 financial crisis hit. I even looked it up. Canada had a national debt going all the way back to Confederation. The same is for the United States and I would also guess for a lot of other major economies too.

So all this debt would mean that the bubble would eventually burst right? I've lived through burst bubbles before. I survived the 1990 real estate bubble and had to hold onto a rental house for 15 years before selling at a profit. After that there was the dot com bubble in which I lost money on Nortel. And then the 2008 financial crisis. Let's not forget the 1987 Savings & Loan Junk Bond crash too.

And you know what? All those bubbles I lived through? All caused by the free market getting ahead of itself. There doesn't seem like any government debt or deficit was involved in their crashes. However, government deficits are the stimulus that gets those markets back up to recovery.

Nobody cares about the massive deficits we get into during times of war. But spending to keep people from being homeless and to keep the hospitals running, that's a real problem isn't it?

Maybe there will be a great upheaval like the world has never seen comparable to empires collapsing. How long did the British Empire last and what crisis occurred when it collapsed? How about the Soviet Union collapse? Going all the way back, we have the collapse of the French Empire, the Mongol Empire and the Roman Empire, which took hundreds of years to disintegrate.

I don't know. Based on history, the upheaval doesn't seem to be like there will be a great reckoning in which society turns into Mad Max.

Of course I could be wrong.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Tostig said:


> Worried about what? Government debt and deficits? All the major economies in the world have debts and deficits. The countries that don't I don't think you really want to live there.


This is a very good point. Every first world country and advanced economy is doing what we are doing.



Tostig said:


> Maybe there will be a great upheaval like the world has never seen comparable to empires collapsing. How long did the British Empire last and what crisis occurred when it collapsed?
> . . .
> I don't know. Based on history, the upheaval doesn't seem to be like there will be a great reckoning in which society turns into Mad Max.


This is also a good point. There are many dramatic descriptions about the "end of the American empire" or the downfall of western economies like Canada, being past their prime.

I am not worried.

Look at Britain. The British Empire collapsed and the Pound was devalued long ago ... the empire is toast. They lost their colonies, they lost their military might, etc. Or how about Germany. A country which went through two total collapses in modern history, including a currency wipeout. Then they were destroyed in *two* wars.

But is life bad in the UK? Is life bad in Germany? Not at all! These are good countries to live in.

If you look at rankings of countries by quality of life / safety / wealth you will find many countries which suffered collapses and enormous declines: Germany, UK, Japan. Other than truly horrendous wartime situations, in the longer term it really does NOT make a country an unlivable disaster.

Heck, you can even look at Iceland and Argentina which have gone through collapses much more recently including total debt and currency wipeouts. It's just not as big a deal as it sounds. Just make sure you own some foreign assets and don't store all your wealth in domestic assets & domestic currency.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

james4beach said:


> This is a very good point. Every first world country and advanced economy is doing what we are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So I agree with you, that in the end all of this will work out. But it's Survivorship bias. 

What's missing is the personal sacrifices that get sweep under the rug---because of bad decisions coming from the government. Every country you listed even outside war, their peoples suffered needlessly.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Originally debt was used to finance infrastructure like highways, then wartime expenses, then government over spending.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Both debts and assets need to be considered relative to each other. This is something the critics like Conservative Pierre Poilivere never consider or discuss.

Canada owes $1 Trillion in debt, but what is the value of all of Canada's assets ?

The value is likely incalculable and possibly infinite, considering the massive land base of Crown land, ownership of infrastructure, ownership of hundreds of thousands of lakes and rivers, ownership of underground resources, ownership of bandwith, annual government revenues, ownership of fisheries and resource extraction in coastal waters on 3 oceans.........etc.etc.

We are a very wealthy country, simply due to our geography and location in the world.

To paraphrase Mark Twain.......the reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

sags said:


> Both debts and assets need to be considered relative to each other. This is something the critics like Conservative Pierre Poilivere never consider or discuss.
> 
> Canada owes $1 Trillion in debt, but what is the value of all of Canada's assets ?
> 
> ...


So why pay taxes? Let MMT do all the work. Sell off Amund Ringnes Island for 1Trillion....may it could be the last act of Trump.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MMT doesn't involve paying operating expenses. It is a concept of governments owing debt to themselves instead of borrowing in bond markets.

Assets can be sold though, as Stephen Harper did when he sold the government owned GM shares to "balance" the budget before the election.


----------

