Discussions

With the exception of maybe some weird special-case nations like Vatican City, no country will ever be out of debt. Canada was in debt long before you were born, and no one's children will ever live see a debt-free Canada. This is not a realistic and attainable goal and the very notion of it demonstrates a lack of understanding when it comes to global economics.  
 
Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind. I mean, obviously, most people are not up on global economics because they don't need to be. The problem stems from believing that a nation functions like a household except bigger. This is not the case.  
 
Debt is a normal and natural function of commerce, and so is interest. [b]The numbers always go up.[/b] Whether the debt is a billion dollars or a trillion dollars, it doesn't really matter. The actual number is really only a representation of a very complex relationship between a variety of economic factors.  
 
If the national debt is ten trillion dollars by the time 2030 rolls around, I would not be surprised. I expect would expect it, even. It won't be the fault of any single political party or individual, it'll just have been a function of continuing to adapt to social/environmental/economic circumstances of the of the world itself.

Reducing national debt is possible.  
Increased productivity .  
Improved environment to encourage business investment.  
Cost effective targeted government spending.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2021-09-21 15:54:53

A better, more realistic measure, is just to reduce/improve the debt to GDP ratio and consequently lower the per capita debt.  
 
By this metric, Canada is still in a better position than it was during the second World War, and make no mistake, the Covid pandemic is the single greatest crisis our nation has faced since then.  
 
It's also not like productivity isn't already constantly increasing. I mean, banks and corporations are certainly profiting year after year these days. Where is their wealth being generated from while the financial situation for everyday Canadians somehow continues to more or less degrade?  
 
Once upon a time, it was normal for things to be closed on Saturdays and Sundays (even earlier, also Wednesday afternoons. Because that's when the Brandon Hills Old Timers' Picnic used to be held.), and usually only one person in a household had to maintain a job in order for their family to maintain a comfortable lifestyle. Now, it's seven-day work weeks with two family members working and full-time positions are a luxury.  
 
At the ground level, our present society is absolutely more productive than it ever was, it's just now for some reason the general population is not seeing the dividends from their efforts.  
 
People are struggling to balance their books. The government is struggling to balance their books. Yet banks and corporations are doing better than they ever have in the history of our entire civilization, raking it in hand over fist.  
 
Hmm. What ever could the problem be?

If 95% of our national media is reliant on handouts from one specific political party how are they supposed to remain neutral, do you think they won't skew their output to suit their financial needs ?  
 
If 95% of news media outlets skew a story their specific way, how do we discern fact from fiction when the only non subsidized media is far left or far right ?  
 
I feel like old school reporters from the 1950's to 1980's would scoff at a government bribing their organization like this, essentially corrupting their o:bjectivity.

These things need to be simplified. That’s the problem. People make it sound complicated because they don’t want to face harsh reality.  
Our national debt load is unsustainable in the long term.

Why do you think the national media is solely dependent upon handouts from political parties?  
 
Why do you think journalists now aren't somehow interested in researching and delivering facts?  
 
Edited by Hashidoi, 2021-09-21 18:21:20

Our national debt load now isn't as bad as it was at the end of the second World War, and we recovered from that.  
 
I think there's a certain subset of our society that thinks things should be 'hard' just because they remember things being harder for themselves in the past. That something now is somehow wrong because things now are less 'hard'.  
 
It's almost like the cycle of growing up in an abusive household. Where the abused in turn becomes the abuser later, thinking that others must suffer because they suffered.  
 
Edited by Hashidoi, 2021-09-21 18:19:51

It just feels that way to me, the fact that there was the initial 600 million bailout a few years ago and then all of a sudden there's an emergency top up right before they call an election.  
 
And to make it seem even shadier they refused to disclose who got all that tax payer cash, if they were at east transparent about how they waste our money it wouldn't feel as bad.  
 
And I never said our national media is solely dependent on government handouts,they obviously have revenue streams but its been 2 or 3 bailouts now in a row for these multi billion dollar media corporations, I assume this won't be the last under our current government.  
 
But still no support for western economies that have been ravaged recently by covid and market manipulations.

I guess in the simplest of terms, a political party using tax dollars to bail out national news media outlets feels like a serious case of conflict of interest.  
 
Lets put the shoe on the other foot and be honest, anyone who supports the bailout of our national media and isn't directly or indirectly involved in said media, how would you feel if the conservative party under harper had used tax money to influence the media like this ?  
 
Lets take it a step further, how you feel if donald trump as president funneled billions(economy of scale) of dollars to us news media, would you believe he was being altruistic ?

While having a feeling about something is certainly enough for you to galvanize your own position, it takes more than just feelings when it comes to legitimizing that position to others. Some people feel that the earth is flat, and those people are straight-up wrong.  
 
I had also inferred from your phrasing that the implied dependency was about information, not finances.  
 
The funny thing is, I think some your concerns aren't actually so far different from some of my own. Chief among them, the necessity of transparency.  
 
(I see you have another post. I'll entertain you with a response to that one in a short bit.)

is paying a national news media? When did a political party directly pay the media company. I'm not talking about getting government funding, but directly by a political party.  
 
The CBC is a crown corporation and gets funding by the federal government. It gets it's funding no matter what political party is in power. They have gotten funding increases and decreases from both the Liberal and Conservatives. I realize conservatives want to defund the CBC because they don't like how they are covered. There is a difference between a political party and the government in charge.  
 
The conservatives have a lot of media skewed towards them. Post Media is a big one and they own many media outlets.

It's alarming when any private corporate entity is bailed out using public tax dollars. This is a problem that is not exclusive to the media, nor to Canada.  
 
I firmly believe that if a private corporation has engaged in bad business practices, and these practices have resulted in an imminent collapse, then it should just collapse. A new thing will come along, managed better, to take its place. But I'm a naive country bumpkin.  
 
Still, this is where 'too big to fail' comes from. Liberal, Conservative, they both do it. Those automotive bailouts a decade ago happened under a Conservative watch. So, were the situation reversed, based upon their past behaviour the CPC would absolutely have done the same thing the Liberals have done because they've already done it before.  
 
And finally, by virtue of his character alone, it's pretty safe to assume that Donald Trump would never be altruistic.  
 
Edited by Hashidoi, 2021-09-21 20:15:07

That is a poor comparison and a typical borrow and spend now, worry about it later attitude of the impractical.  
I have been employed and in business long enough to know that if you balance your budget and save today you will become more productive, efficient and stronger for the future and more prepared to deal with unforeseen circumstances that may arise.

How is it a poor comparison? And why is it typical?  
 
In what way is it impractical to weigh numbers in context versus weighting them at some flat, vast and terrifyingly inconceivable volume?  
 
You've been in business long enough to know, sure. But so were GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Probably longer than you. You'd think they'd have known the lessons of life too. But there they were, needing and getting bailouts. Clearly they didn't plan for unforeseen circumstances.

They are large businesses with the arrogance and power to expect bailouts and are too large to change and move quickly enough to market conditions, their sheer size makes them inefficient . It will all come crashing down around them one day mark my words, I’ve seen it happen before and it’ll happen again.  
The economy is largely made up of many more small and medium family run businesses and they will be far more resilient and flexible to change and difficult times.  
As a neighbour of mine once said “ those that haven’t saved their pennies for a rainy day are getting a bit wet”. He was right.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2021-09-23 07:34:15

Ford didn’t take the bailout money. If it wasn’t for taxpayer’s dollars, GM and Chrysler would be gone.

That's correct, thanks for bringing that up.  
 
The difference was largely how Ford managed their financing needs differently than GM and Chrysler. It's just as well that we still have GM and Chrysler competing with Ford though. Competition is overall good for the marketplace and keeps research and development from stagnating.

I seem to remember Ford saw the writing on the wall and applied for and received a huge government loan just prior to all the bailouts, I wonder if they ever paid them back or not.  
 
As much as I dislike Ford (locally) you have to give them credit for taking the high road and getting the loan before they needed it like gm and chrysler but government money was needed to keep ford afloat just like the the other 2.

Your neighbour was wrong. GM didn't save and GM didn't get wet.  
 
But vast corporations get a pass because they're powerful and arrogant, you say. They're too big and too slow to change, is how you excuse them.  
 
But why are you even willing to make up an excuse for them at all?  
 
What's the difference between a Liberal government that bails out corporations, and a Conservative government that bails out corporations? Why do you wail and gnash your teeth about the one, but are willing to forgive the other?  
 
Edited by Hashidoi, 2021-09-23 13:45:10

Of course they were in trouble. They took a bailout from government without which the company would not have survived. I make no excuse for sloppy business practices exercised by large corporations.  
What you seem to be unfortunately missing is that borrowing be it personal, cooperate or government has to be be repaid or reduced eventually or large interest payments accumulate. It should not be treated as a never ending cycle and borrowing should not exceed ones means to repay it within s reasonable time. The liberal government was already beyond this point before covid 19 came along and caused matters to become worse.

I'm not missing it at all. The things you're talking about are very basic and practical.  
 
But, the trouble is that people are conflating the workings of household economics and that of global economics.  
 
I've been trying to think of an analogy that what would work here. You've got farmer in your username, so I'm going to boldly assume you've got a good amount of agricultural experience. I don't. But I've got a tiny garden.  
 
Now, I know the basics of how growing plants works, and if everything works well I might actually get some tomatoes when all is said and done. But I can't really apply these gardening basics in the same fashion if I were trying to do it over 8000+ acres. It's not practical, nor possible to treat 8000+ acres of crop like it's a small garden. There are factors I don't know about or understand enough about to do well, and if I tried, it would end in utter disaster I'm sure.  
 
So the thing I am desperately trying to impart is that a national debt is not the same as a household debt. It is unrealistic and naive to try and treat it as though it were.  
 
Edited by Hashidoi, 2021-09-24 00:36:18

Debt is debt no matter how people try to rework it. There is sensible and manageable borrowing and unsustainable borrowing. Within a very short time Canadian national surpasses a sustainable level under the liberal government. That left Canada due to poor planning in a poor financial position when faced with an emergency situation, there was no war chest. Unfortunately covid reared it’s ugly head and caused our debt to rise above and beyond the already unsustainable point.  
Justin Trudeau was recently quoted as saying that he is not at all concerned about Canada’s financial predicament and will have no hesitation in continuing this trend. He just threw away over six hundred million dollars on an unnecessary election and indicated that within two years he intends to repeat that foolish excess.  
This cannot continue, it’s a fools overture and Canadians will have to pay for this in the end.  
We need accountable, targeted government spending and borrowing, we need to encourage business investment ( at an historic low), we need to improve healthcare provision, we need to engage with our allies instead of being left on the sidelines, we need to encourage more sustainable lifestyles and industries , reduce waste and we need a road map to reduce national debt.  
Theses things are all possible but will take time, planning and commitment to achieve. The current liberal regime shows none of these qualities and looks only to make matters much worse through their own stupidity .  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2021-09-24 07:45:36

Canada is going to always be in debt because debt is a necessary function of national/international commerce.  
 
No matter how much you preach otherwise. No matter how much you want it to be true, or no matter desperately you believe it that it will. Canada's national debt is never going to cause the sky to fall.  
 
This is why the national debt is the worst political boogeyman.  
 
Edited by Hashidoi, 2021-09-24 11:03:39

Again very impractical. Doesn’t matter how you figure it out all debt has to be serviced one way or another. Reduced debt load is cheaper to maintain and easier to service, it’s that simple .  
Right now we are stuck in an endless cycle of borrow and spend excessively. In the near future the electorate will choose a government prepared to make the tough and necessary decisions and bring Canada’s finances back to a sustainable and accountable level.

Oh? When a currency's backing strength is "confidence", what is it really worth?  
 
Does the economy exist to serve humans? Or do humans exist to serve the economy?  
 
Our world didn't end when it set aside it's divinely appointed emperors and kings. It's not going to end because because a bunch of numbers are getting bigger all the time, either.  
 
Edited by Hashidoi, 2021-09-24 14:09:44

Obviously you do not understand the workings of a modern economy or the rule of power.  
I rest my case as proven.

You demonstrated that are either unwilling or unable to understand that there are differences between home economics and global economics.  
 
You never really answered anything.  
 
You just dug in your heels and continually prattled along the lines of 'this is the way things have always been, and always should be' and then you declared yourself the winner.  
 
This seems to be a problem endemic to the most troubling elements of the right. So, honestly, I can't say I'm too surprised that you're embarrassing yourself in this fashion.  
 
But hey, you do you.  
 
Edited by Hashidoi, 2021-09-24 19:47:23