[Lemmy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I learned that in high school social studies - why doesn't a person with an economics Masters degree know that?

Well, an MA in economics is really a math degree, not an economics one. You leaern a lot more about economics in Bachelor's Degree program. But given that he wasn't ever able to get a job as an economist, he mustn't have learned very much about economics at any point in his life.

bootlegga bootlegga:

For someone who is supposedly trained as an economist, it's unbelievable.

Schooling isn't really training. He would have been trained as an economist by an employer, had he ever had one.

bootlegga bootlegga:

I wonder if it would have been possible to pay the entire debt back - but I do agree that they could have paid more than they did.

They were rolling in cash. They could have paid back 20 times more, at least. Then we could tell the Swiss bankers to fuck their hats and save that fifth of our budget that leaves the country as interest payments.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

It's well known that they ran deficits the first few years in power - that was largely a legacy of the Mulroney government and poor global economy. If you're going to say Harper is largely blameless for increasing debt in bad economic times (which is totally fair), then you have to do the same for Chretien.

Which I have...but it doesn't negate that either man has left this Country further in debt than when they started in office. Those events are partial reasons why we went into debt.

bootlegga bootlegga:

The fact is that Chretien was able to do something nobody else had done in decades - start paying down the debt and stop the constant stream of deficits. Those billions they paid back saved taxpayers billions more in interest. That's a success no matter how you slice it.

To a degree, yes.

As Lemmy has said, they could have done more. I vividly recall the election campaigns where the reigning Liberals would use the surplus money as bait to gain votes. It worked well.

Harper did the same during his first two years in office but we kept hearing from those on the left that he was "throwing the money away" expressing dreams of programs the surplus could pay for.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

The structural deficit was created prior to the collapse. You've missed the point again.

Wasn't that Don Drummond from TD that speculated that?

$1:

Don Drummond, influential chief economist at TD, and a former federal finance official, believes Canada was already heading into structural deficit before the recession.

Why?

Ten years of excessive growth in government spending; the biggest-ever federal tax cut, by then finance minister Paul Martin; and the 2 per cut in the GST by the Harper government.

But it appears the blame all lies at the feet of Harper in your eyes.

[Curtman]

$1:

While the growth slowed in 1988, our federal debt continued to climb, breaking $300 billion in 1988, $400 billion 1992, and $500 billion in 1994. It peaked in 1997 at $563 billion.

Between 1997 and 2008, it slowly declined to $458 billion. After that, it all changed. Our federal debt grew by $5.8 billion in 2008-09, by $55.4 billion in 2009-10, $34 billion in 2010-11, $31 billion in 2011-12. It's expected to grow by $21.1 billion in 2012-13. Further, it's expected to grow until 2015-16. In just three years from 2008 to 2011 all the debt repayment ($105 billion) of the previous eight years was completely wiped out.

They did not leave us further in debt. You're using deficits and surpluses to measure the total debt. Fail.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I learned that in high school social studies - why doesn't a person with an economics Masters degree know that?

Well, an MA in economics is really a math degree, not an economics one. You leaern a lot more about economics in Bachelor's Degree program. But given that he wasn't ever able to get a job as an economist, he mustn't have learned very much about economics at any point in his life.

It's gotta be hard for Steve. Just an MA in economics, having to figure it all out by himself, nobody there to advise him. Even the journalists must have had PhDs in economics to ask him about the recession when he made his famous statement, otherwise how could they have seen it coming.

And he only got an MA. Economics being a science and all, you'd think they would at least give him an MSc.

[Lemmy]

Did you have an actual point, troll, or did you just want to take your usual, ignorant swat at the entire discipline of economics again?

That was rhetorical. **Mod edit**

[andyt]

I did have an actual point for the first paragraph, and I think a valid one. No other prime minister has had a degree in economics. It doesn't matter, they're supposed to have people for that, as I'm sure did Harper.

The last sentence was gratuitous. Just couldn't help myself. Still, that economics isn't a real science is a commonly held opinion, not just one I made up just to upset you.

[martin14]

Regina Regina:

Why do none of these posts consider the global recession that hit the world and the other global economies that are on the verge of collapse. So far we've been nearly unscathed yet out largest trading partner is still struggling. I don't think any of those numbers and graphs are even comparable. Nothing is the same....good or bad.

Because then the Libs and Dippers wouldn't be able to whine so loud.

We can't deny them their whining time.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

They did not leave us further in debt. You're using deficits and surpluses to measure the total debt. Fail.

Stick to pushing for pot legalization, that's about all you're good for.

Canada's Debt 1993: 487.2 billion

Canada's Debt 2003: 559.6 billion

Peak debt during the Chretien era was 608.9 billion in 1997-1998.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/frt-trf/2011/frt-trf-1103-eng.asp

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

They did not leave us further in debt. You're using deficits and surpluses to measure the total debt. Fail.

Stick to pushing for pot legalization, that's about all you're good for.

Canada's Debt 1993: 487.2 billion

Canada's Debt 2003: 559.6 billion

Peak debt during the Chretien era was 608.9 billion in 1997-1998.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/frt-trf/2011/frt-trf-1103-eng.asp

Net debt 1993: 527,926 (millions)
Net debt 2008: 525,213 (millions)

Stick to whatever you're good at, we have no idea what that is though. Seems to be nothing but trolling.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

They did not leave us further in debt. You're using deficits and surpluses to measure the total debt. Fail.

Stick to pushing for pot legalization, that's about all you're good for.

Canada's Debt 1993: 487.2 billion

Canada's Debt 2003: 559.6 billion

Peak debt during the Chretien era was 608.9 billion in 1997-1998.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/frt-trf/2011/frt-trf-1103-eng.asp

Net debt 1993: 527,926 (millions)
Net debt 2008: 525,213 (millions)

Stick to whatever you're good at, we have no idea what that is though. Seems to be nothing but trolling.

Being involved in a discussion from day 1 is trolling? I guess it's only trolling because I don't agree with you; or because I was picking on your boy Beaver.

This a discussion, Curt and if it's too "adult" for you, or maybe it makes you cry at night, you can see yourself out.

As much as it bothers you, Harper came into office in 2006. Not 2008.

It's funny that you want to give credit for the surplus during the first few years of Harper, but don't want to take credit for the cuts that drove us into that structural deficit you've been complaining about.

Pick one.

[Curtman]

Curtman Curtman:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/frt-trf/2011/frt-trf-1103-eng.asp

Net debt 1993: 527,926 (millions)
Net debt 2008: 525,213 (millions)

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

This a discussion, Curt and if it's too "adult" for you, or maybe it makes you cry at night, you can see yourself out.

You as well my little racist friend. If you wish to have an adult conversation, then maybe try to refrain from the pot-smoker stuff, the actual real world situations defense, and so on, and so forth. That's what makes you a troll.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

As much as it bothers you, Harper came into office in 2006. Not 2008.

It's funny that you want to give credit for the surplus during the first few years of Harper, but don't want to take credit for the cuts that drove us into that structural deficit you've been complaining about.

Pick one.

I'm fine with that, the 2006 number is lower. Read your own link maybe?

Net debt 1993: 527,926 (millions)
Net debt 2006: 523,905 (millions)

The GST cut created the structural deficit, like everyone said would happen at the time (who wasn't a Harperite). EDIT: And Lemmy, who argued that the Laffer Curve proved revenue would increase. I would never accuse Lemmy of being a Harperite, even by association with that discussion.

[martin14]

Curtman Curtman:

You as well my little racist friend.

racist ?

pulled that card out in the wrong hand....

in the wrong game !!

[Curtman]

martin14 martin14:

Curtman Curtman:

You as well my little racist friend.

racist ?

pulled that card out in the wrong hand....

in the wrong game !!

Meh. When dealing with a troll, you have to troll him right back.

[Regina]

martin14 martin14:

Curtman Curtman:

You as well my little racist friend.

racist ?

pulled that card out in the wrong hand....

in the wrong game !!

Yeah that one came from another deck.