Canadian Federal Election - Page 342

WarrenC12 · #**6821** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 9:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

Even in personal finance you can constantly have growing debt and increase your income/assets without going bankrupt, and in fact this is pretty common.

You borrow money for school, then you buy a car to get to work, then you buy a house. Maybe you increase your debt against your house, but by a fraction of its increase in value. You're a Boomer who buys at $80,000 and then in 2040 you kick the bucket owing $90,000 on a house that's worth $1.5M.

The big difference with the feds is they can create their own money and inflate away their debt.

I realize that but I was specifically dumbing down the example to prove how silly the original point was.

bodaggin · #**6822** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 9:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

In the public finance world of course this amounts to borrowing to grow the economy vs. borrowing to spend in ways that don't grow the economy. For the most part this is infrastructure development versus entitlements.

Someone123, you're right, spending productivity matters. Paying someone to dig a hole and fill it back up again = total waste. Pay someone to build hydro dam that will sell power = productive work. Yes. That's key.

ToxiK · #**6823** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 9:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

and having 25 MP's in a backbench party would have changed that?

The only option there was to not have a constitution.

To my eyes, the bloc just whines and complains all the time but they have no influence on issues that impact quebec....if not to be a sovereigntist protest vote, I don't see what Quebecers believe they bring them.

At least Bloc MP's would speak for Québec, not against it.

The option to have the Constitution was to negotiate. This is what Ottawa did with the other provinces.

The Bloc speaks for Québec, even when what they say is unpopular in the ROC. MP's of other parties will cave when what they say hurts their party in other provinces, or they will just follow the party line and be docile.

If the only way to get good representation is to have MP'S in the winning party, why doesn't Alberta simply vote Liberal when the Conservatives have no chance of taking power?

kwoldtimer · #**6824** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 9:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToxiK

At least Bloc MP's would speak for Québec, not against it.

The option to have the Constitution was to negotiate. This is what Ottawa did with the other provinces.

The Bloc speaks for Québec, even when what they say is unpopular in the ROC. MP's of other parties will cave when what they say hurts their party in other provinces, or they will just follow the party line and be docile.

If the only way to get good representation is to have MP'S in the winning party, why doesn't Alberta simply vote Liberal when the Conservatives have no chance of taking power?

Why do you assume that Alberta has good representation?

bodaggin · #**6825** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 9:44 PM**

Warren isn't understanding this. In so few words.

lio45 · #**6826** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 9:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Well sure, and it's the same for companies that exist in perpetuity, which is more like your personal situation as you're talking about your real estate holdings. If I can earn an 8% return on my business, why wouldn't I borrow as much as I can at 3%. Big win for myself and/or my shareholders.

He's trying to liken in to a personal finance situation. I make $50k a year and spend $55k with no assets. I have a $5k annual deficit. If nothing changes eventually I will go bankrupt... that's true.

Exactly, and our analogies (business that exists long term) are a much better fit than his.

I'd agree with him if his target was government waste, rather than the idea of government leverage / debt.

It's like me borrowing to buy another building, versus borrowing to go to space with Katy Perry. (Assuming I'm not some influencer who could somehow monetize that; and I assure you I'm not, lol)

bodaggin sees lio45 borrowing, and says it's bad, but I say "let's wait and see how the money is going to be spent before we decide whether it's good or bad."

kiwi4353 · #**6827** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 9:46 PM**

Don't forget that the only poll that matters is the election polls. GO OUT AND VOTE!

WarrenC12 · #**6828** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 9:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Warren isn't understanding this. In so few words.

Is that what you've learned in 20 years of finance? Dumb memes?

You still haven't explained why we are different than Sri Lanka.

bodaggin · #**6829** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 9:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You still haven't explained why we are different than Sri Lanka.

We aren't. That's the entire point. On Canada's current trajectory, we end up like Sri Lanka. Or Venezuela, if we continue printing.

WarrenC12 · #**6830** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 10:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bodaggin

We aren't. That's the entire point. On Canada's current trajectory, we end up like Sri Lanka. Or Venezuela, if we continue printing.

I guess we just need to raise taxes then.

Deflationary and good for the deficit.

Nouvellecosse · #**6831** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 10:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

In the public finance world of course this amounts to borrowing to grow the economy vs. borrowing to spend in ways that don't grow the economy. For the most part this is infrastructure development versus entitlements. There's also the public service which at this point federally is likely a net negative almost all the time (it might not be; imagine hiring an anti-money-laundering worker for $100k a year who brings in $10M a year you wouldn't otherwise have recovered from criminals).

Canada hasn't been spending enough on infrastructure and spends too much on entitlements. At this point I believe there are lots of potential construction projects that would be a huge net gain, while a lot of money is going down the drain in entitlements without much to show for it (with "pay people not to work" entitlements being some of the worst).

That's generally true, but there are some things that get classified as entitlements that are productive. For instance, transfer payments provided as part of the social safety net can offer government a net savings by reducing or preventing the social problems related to poverty. Reducing poverty can reduce crime and improve general health which have many implications for the economy. But it may not be in the form of growing the economy so much as not allowing potential growth to be stifled by preventable problems.

bodaggin · #**6832** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 10:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I guess we just need to raise taxes then.

Deflationary and good for the deficit.

You don't have to raise taxes, you just have to stop printing money to spend wastefully. And yes, deflation is good. Deflation is falling prices. We're in an affordability crisis. Falling prices are a good thing! Falling prices are what we're trying to achieve my Keynesian friend.

https://youtu.be/GTQnarzmTOc?si=0leh8Y18QQbSWtko&t=110

WarrenC12 · #**6833** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bodaggin

You don't have to raise taxes, you just have to stop printing money to spend wastefully. And yes, deflation is good. Deflation is falling prices. We're in an affordability crisis. Falling prices are a good thing! That's what we're trying to achieve.

Falling prices is a nightmare.

You are continually confusing "printing money" with "government spending". They are not the same thing.

Truenorth00 · #**6834** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 10:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

Canada hasn't been spending enough on infrastructure and spends too much on entitlements. At this point I believe there are lots of potential construction projects that would be a huge net gain, while a lot of money is going down the drain in entitlements without much to show for it (with "pay people not to work" entitlements being some of the worst).

100%. I'm on a base this week for an exercise. There's barracks without potable water. We're planning for a major event. And the wifi in the building is spotty, so our planning software doesn't always work. It's a small look. But so much in our government and society is like this.

Carney is basically proposing to do what Trudeau proposed to do in 2015, but didn't. Make the capital investments we have long failed to do. And a good chunk of this would actually make government more efficient and our economy more productive.

bodaggin · #**6835** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 10:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Falling prices are a nightmare.

The horror of cheaper grocery prices.

WarrenC12 · #**6836** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 10:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bodaggin

The horror of cheaper grocery prices.

Maybe you can google around and see real world examples of deflation and see how those worked out.

In election news, will PP get his security clearance if he loses? What's the downside?

kwoldtimer · #**6837** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 11:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

That's generally true, but there are some things that get classified as entitlements that are productive. For instance, transfer payments provided as part of the social safety net can offer government a net savings by reducing or preventing the social problems related to poverty. Reducing poverty can reduce crime and improve general health which have many implications for the economy. But it may not be in the form of growing the economy so much as not allowing potential growth to be stifled by preventable problems.

"Benefits" in Canada, no?

kwoldtimer · #**6838** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 11:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

And people are voting for the Libs why, exactly?...]

I'm not one to declare my voting choice to others, but:

- CBC
- foreign aid cut
- shift Embassy to Jerusalem (still part of PP's platform, I believe)
- referendum to implement tax increases

apart from anything else, these make it impossible for me to consider voting Conservative this time around.

kwoldtimer · #**6839** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 11:21 PM**

G&M is reporting that Poilievre's own seat could be at risk. That would be a shocker and I'm sceptical.

Loco101 · #**6840** Posted **Apr 23, 2025, 11:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wigs

Poilievre has been CPC leader for 2.5 years. In two and a half years they couldn't come up with a good, solid, properly costed budget?

This is sloppy, hastily put together, and frankly towards Canadian voters that are actively engaged: disingenuous AF. Almost like "we can make up a bunch of numbers, Canadians don't read this anyway"

What was the attack ads they used against Trudeau in 2015?

Poilievre. "He's just not ready"

YES!!! Love the Tim Hudak Ontario PC reference!!

The CPC platform reminds me quite a bit of both of the ones the Hudak PCs released in both 2011 and 2014.

I remember there was a third party ad that really went after the Hudak PC platform that could pretty much be used for the current CPC one with a few changes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf8NcwOA4BE

The quotes taken from editorials:

"clumsy attempt to manipulate voters"

"voodoo math"

"no reason to believe"

"selling pixie dust"

They also describe PP's platform quite well in my opinion. I wonder how many of the same people were behind both?