Doug Ford - Build in greenbelt

[Mad Mike]

Ignoring social issues doesn't mean they're not there; it just means they're being ignored. It's easy to talk about what should be ignored when it's not affecting you. All the dudes on this forum sure get up in a huff about insurance prices for men tho... Ain't that something?

It's not a matter of ignoring social issues, it's a matter of priority. Watching a transition from manufacturing to McJobs and gov't service workers isn't a long term winning strategy. You can say the low skilled jobs are lost to low cost labor markets, but that's a cop out. We're a modern country that ought to be offsetting efficiencies in labor costs with innovation. You can't do that when the gov't scares off capital investment and makes it noncompetitive for the managerial forces needed to support production.

The 200,000 manufacturing jobs that have left the province under Wynne's reign are a concern because they are high paying jobs and they could have been retained and even expanded if the climate didn't encourage businesses to look elsewhere.

On your point of social issues, yes they are there but it's a matter of priority. If you're old enough to remember when Wynne was McGinty's Ed Minister, you will recall McGinty slapping Wynne around for her EIE strategy, a campaign that included educating 12 year olds on how to masturbate, and 13 year olds on how to properly have anal sex -- that was even too much for him. That's a perfect example of promoting an agenda ahead of the needs and mandate of what she was elected to do. McGinty did support a much scaled back version of Wynne's agenda in bill 157.

now, do you think that is more important than creating great job opportunities for Ontario's taxpayers? Not the short term ones from infrastructure spending, not the mid term ones created by adding civil servants -- the long term ones that come from attracting investment.

 

[RockerGuy]

The problem is there is only so far you can go by offsetting private sector job losses with public sector hires. The Wynne plan -- add a regulation, hire 2 people to manage it -- only goes so far. That's and the sugar high the province gets off infrastructure spend does a head fake on GDP. Sure GDP is there and strong, but at some point if you eliminate the private sector, there is nothing left to pay the govt's bills and things come to a screeching halt. See Ireland. See Portugal. See Italy. See Spain. See Greece. Is that the path we want?

As they say, socialism works until you run out of other people's money.

It's not a matter of ignoring social issues, it's a matter of priority. Watching a transition from manufacturing to McJobs and gov't service workers isn't a long term winning strategy. You can say the low skilled jobs are lost to low cost labor markets, but that's a cop out. We're a modern country that ought to be offsetting efficiencies in labor costs with innovation. You can't do that when the gov't scares off capital investment and makes it noncompetitive for the managerial forces needed to support production.

The 200,000 manufacturing jobs that have left the province under Wynne's reign are a concern because they are high paying jobs and they could have been retained and even expanded if the climate didn't encourage businesses to look elsewhere.

On your point of social issues, yes they are there but it's a matter of priority. If you're old enough to remember when Wynne was McGinty's Ed Minister, you will recall McGinty slapping Wynne around for her EIE strategy, a campaign that included educating 12 year olds on how to masturbate, and 13 year olds on how to properly have anal sex -- that was even too much for him. That's a perfect example of promoting an agenda ahead of the needs and mandate of what she was elected to do. McGinty did support a much scaled back version of Wynne's agenda in bill 157.

now, do you think that is more important than creating great job opportunities for Ontario's taxpayers? Not the short term ones from infrastructure spending, not the mid term ones created by adding civil servants -- the long term ones that come from attracting investment.

They're into identity politics rather than policies that would strengthen the economy. Look at Trudeau. Hasn't done much to improve the economy, except we learned a new word & he has some cool vacations.

 

[backmarkerducati]

As they say, socialism works until you run out of other people's money.

They're into identity politics rather than policies that would strengthen the economy. Look at Trudeau. Hasn't done much to improve the economy, except we learned a new word & he has some cool vacations.

Canada currently has 4.8% industrial growth.... US under Trump has 1.8% BTW and the rest of the OECD is mostly under 3% (China is at 6% though...)... All while Canada is running a deficit that is 1/3 per capita of the US's (so gov deficit spending is not the entire cause otherwise the US would be higher with a much higher deficit--per person--than ours). The real world numbers are not matching your narrative.

 

[Baggsy]

We're in the boom end of a cycle for automotive and minerals at this point. Should we be borrowing more, or paying off the debt now?

 

[backmarkerducati]

I haven't really read up on the abortion issue but here's my preliminary thoughts. If a fetus has feelings, I think it is wrong to abort. For me, this doesn't apply to rape.

We have common ground here (I think) and you also do with the science, as that comes with brain development at about 28 weeks. In Canada they are saying 20 weeks or less (which is common give or take in the developed world) for elective termination. Before feelings and other things. As noted, I would like to see a larger margin of error and that number dropped to 16 weeks or less, just my opinion on that one...

The scientific idea is prior to 20 weeks (noting again my disagreement with 20) the fetus is just part of the women's body (her body her decision). The next eight weeks being the margin of error... After 28 it starts to develop consciousness (feelings etc.).

 

[backmarkerducati]

We're in the boom end of a cycle for automotive and minerals at this point. Should we be borrowing more, or paying off the debt now?

Now that is a 100% legitimate question from an economics point of view... and both sides can make a legit argument on how that will impact the economy.

From a purely economics point of view based on policy, I am OK with running a deficit federally for the next few years to keep growth on track (~18K per capita now). Ontario has been out of control for too long and it needs to be reeled in (22K or something like that), the problem in Ontario...one party claims they are going to do it (math totally does not support the claim BTW) but in reality all three main parties are really talking more big deficits under their actual policies. The big difference between the three, which income bracket(s) gets more money.

That we are doing poorly (based on economic indicators) under the current federal government, that is just complete uninformed hogwash.

 

[J_F]

We're in the boom end of a cycle for automotive and minerals at this point. Should we be borrowing more, or paying off the debt now?

a lot there in that question

manufacturing, certainly we're getting near the end
minerals extraction - mining, with the exception of the oil sands, are expanding

while money is cheap to borrow (bonds issue) it makes sense to do some stimulation
but I think it should be targeted to develop specific segments, not just juice the GDP

as for Ontario, we had a real opportunity here to develop alternative energy products manufacturing
as the car plants were closing and lay offs piling up, we could have taken the lead
large, skilled, dedicated work force, cheap energy, excellent logistics
but we let China take that capacity away

we are headed back to our beginnings, a resource based economy
where we export raw materials, someone else adds the value
and we import almost everything

 

[Type17]

We're in the boom end of a cycle for automotive and minerals at this point. Should we be borrowing more, or paying off the debt now?

Yeah that's a pretty tough one to answer in a clear cut way. The trouble is that it's not really the kind of thing you can pay right away due to the nature of the debt... prepaying it now would incur very serious financial penalties, would empty provincial coffers, and would make the province a pariah in the capital markets world. At some point we'll just have to stop running deficits and just continue to service the debt until it is repaid.

As long as the money is relatively cheap though, you can always make a pretty sound financial argument that you can and should borrow more, especially if the returns on that money are higher than the interest rate you're paying.

I think when rates start to go up significantly (we're kinda getting there), the province will probably have to do some belt tightening.

 

[RockerGuy]

Canada currently has 4.8% industrial growth.... US under Trump has 1.8% BTW and the rest of the OECD is mostly under 3% (China is at 6% though...)... All while Canada is running a deficit that is 1/3 per capita of the US's (so gov deficit spending is not the entire cause otherwise the US would be higher with a much higher deficit--per person--than ours). The real world numbers are not matching your narrative.

Could be the economy is already recovering or the stimulus Harper put into the economy.

 

[Type17]

Could be the economy is already recovering or the stimulus Harper put into the economy.

I think you've made it quite clear you're out of your element here and now you're just embarrassing yourself. It's one thing to have different social views than the liberals, it's another to be so mindlessly against them that you fabricate a problem that doesn't exist. The economy has done fine under both PMs... there's no reason to keep insisting that one party has damaged it when it's clearly not the case.

 

[backmarkerducati]

Could be the economy is already recovering or the stimulus Harper put into the economy.

I doubt it can be attributed a high degree to Harper, in the multiple years after recession under Harper's rule while positive I do not remember seeing any numbers THIS positive (growth wise) and there should have been based on the bounce in the years directly after (say next five). We are 10 years out from 2008 now.... Remember the Laffer Curve and the impact taxation (and spending) has on revenue and growth--there is an explanation here.

But even if it could be highly attributed to Harper's path, the economy right now (TODAY) is doing very well from a federal perspective so why change the current course on that note??? Just because we don't like the current guy's father (and I still don't understand why people hate the Rolling Stones so much...)?

 

[J_F]

^ yes

politicians had little to do with the lower exposure to the debt crisis
and to the steady recovery from it, but the stimulus did help
the regulatory framework that existed before Harper or Trudeau were born is the reason

we have 5 large, well managed, well capitalized banks
they operate under strict regulation
and we have mandatory mortgage insurance for high ratio deals

US financial system had/has none of those things

 

[RockerGuy]

I think you've made it quite clear you're out of your element here and now you're just embarrassing yourself. It's one thing to have different social views than the liberals, it's another to be so mindlessly against them that you fabricate a problem that doesn't exist. The economy has done fine under both PMs... there's no reason to keep insisting that one party has damaged it when it's clearly not the case.

Attacking the person instead of the argument. I don't see any value in your post. But you're in your element, I am not in mines.

 

[Mad Mike]

Canada currently has 4.8% industrial growth.... US under Trump has 1.8% BTW and the rest of the OECD is mostly under 3% (China is at 6% though...)... All while Canada is running a deficit that is 1/3 per capita of the US's (so gov deficit spending is not the entire cause otherwise the US would be higher with a much higher deficit--per person--than ours). The real world numbers are not matching your narrative.

Not sure where you get your numbers, Canada's 2017 GDP growth was 1.7% vs US 2.9%. Canada is clipping along at about 1/2 the US growth rate this year.
https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/gdp-growth <--Canada
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth <--USA

This fact we're not surging with the US can in part be blamed on Ontario's loss of manufacturing capacity -- the province isn't able to produce the goods necessary to participate fully in the US boom cycle. Why? Again, it's those manufacturing jobs that have gone elsewhere.

This is close to me. My small business was acquired by an American company 4 years ago. Within a few months the entire company was relocated to PA -- 10 good paying jobs + a ton of purchasing removed from the local economy simply because regulation and taxes were too high in Ontario. $2M GDP removed entirely from the Ontario economy. With the US economy surging, that just might be $3M had the plant stayed.

GDP is one measure of economic health, it's not the only thing to look at.

 

[RockerGuy]

Magna threatened to leave if Wynne won again. I won't be surprised.

 

[Type17]

Attacking the person instead of the argument. I don't see any value in your post. But you're in your element, I am not in mines.

You don't have to take it personally. You said something stupid, and I told you that it was stupid in no uncertain terms. You can make of that what you will. If you take that as an attack on you, then so be it. There's nothing to be respected or argued in willful ignorance and uneducated opinions don't need to be given the time of day.

 

[Mad Mike]

Yeah that's a pretty tough one to answer in a clear cut way. The trouble is that it's not really the kind of thing you can pay right away due to the nature of the debt... prepaying it now would incur very serious financial penalties, would empty provincial coffers, and would make the province a pariah in the capital markets world. At some point we'll just have to stop running deficits and just continue to service the debt until it is repaid.

I don't think this is tough at all. I always like to boil things down to 'room temperature thinking', and personal economics. I realize it's not a 100% comparison, but it's pretty close. Lets say the surging economy gets you an extra $500/mo profit sharing but no jump in salary. Do you ratchet up your debt to a new level based on the bonus knowing full well it could disappear next month? Do you bank some? Invest some?

As long as the money is relatively cheap though, you can always make a pretty sound financial argument that you can and should borrow more, especially if the returns on that money are higher than the interest rate you're paying.

Continuing on the argument above, money is cheap and I'm getting my extra $500 monthly bonus -- do I finance the Santa Fe for $400/mo or use my extra win-fall to get the Cayenne for $900?

I think when rates start to go up significantly (we're kinda getting there), the province will probably have to do some belt tightening.

Holy crap! I went for the Cayenne, my monthly bonus dried up and my mortgage is coming up for renewal at a rate I've never seen! What did I do wrong?

 

[Type17]

I don't think this is tough at all. I always like to boil things down to 'room temperature thinking', and personal economics. I realize it's not a 100% comparison, but it's pretty close. Lets say the surging economy gets you an extra $500/mo profit sharing but no jump in salary. Do you ratchet up your debt to a new level based on the bonus knowing full well it could disappear next month? Do you bank some? Invest some?
Continuing on the argument above, money is cheap and I'm getting my extra $500 monthly bonus -- do I finance the Santa Fe for $400/mo or use my extra winfall to get the the Cayenne for $900?
Holy crap! I went for the Cayenne, my monthly bonus dried up and my mortgage is coming up for renewal at a rate I've never seen! What did I do wrong?

I don't disagree, my man. I recognize that that is a potential situation and it's a valid argument. I think we're only disagreeing on the level at which the debt load becomes a significant risk. I know this can't go on forever.

Note that bond debt doesn't get refinanced. Changes in interest rate will only have an impact only on the bondholder, not the issuer.

 

[Mad Mike]

I doubt it can be attributed a high degree to Harper, in the multiple years after recession under Harper's rule while positive I do not remember seeing any numbers THIS positive (growth wise) and there should have been based on the bounce in the years directly after (say next five). We are 10 years out from 2008 now.... Remember the Laffer Curve and the impact taxation (and spending) has on revenue and growth--there is an explanation here.

But even if it could be highly attributed to Harper's path, the economy right now (TODAY) is doing very well from a federal perspective so why change the current course on that note??? Just because we don't like the current guy's father (and I still don't understand why people hate the Rolling Stones so much...)?

Put away the Laffer curve stuff, it's a theory that simply doesn't apply here. Laffer's main premise is that as tax increases, incentive to produce and output decreases. I'm guessing you read some scholarly article that shows the breaking points for taxation and that that has you confused about the theory.

You are right the economy is chugging along nicely, thanks in part to the fact it never receded under the last regime, the US economic surge, and in part because commodity prices are back in the green.

That doesn't mean government is healthy, or that government finances are under control. In good times we ought to have a bountiful surplus. Imaging if you were a big company and you were loosing money and spending like a drunken sailor in a robust economy -- what would your stakeholders do at the next AGM vote?

 

[Mad Mike]

I don't disagree, my man. I recognize that that is a potential situation and it's a valid argument. I think we're only disagreeing on the level at which the debt load becomes a significant risk. I know this can't go on forever.

Note that bond debt doesn't get refinanced. Changes in interest rate will only have an impact only on the bondholder, not the issuer.

We're at about 100% debt to GDP, the countries that are worse than us are either highly productive or face a scary future. Are we at the breaking point? No, but were heading in that direction.

My concern is that if we were to face another cooling period like we faced 10 years ago, we will not have the reserves to weather or recover. Ontario Liberals have taken the easy route on a primary duty of government - the economy. Out employment rates are artificially high because the Liberals strategically expanded the public sector at rates double that of the private sector, AND they continue feeding a 'sugar high' in the building and construction sectors. Both of these are quick and easy tricks to for managing job numbers, they skirt the hard job of creating sustained long term private sector production. And construction + gov't bloat eventually crash. They have also expanded entitlement spending by a very large amount. If those things are weighing heavy on a robust economy, what's going to happen when things cool off?

We need a gov't that can attract industry, investment and jobs. It's hard work and it requires a lot of political capital and a willingness to take on your enemies. We don't need to create more regulation or expensive social issues to fix - that seems to have been the focus of the current regime.