Who knew? Turns out the Harper government was actually terrific for wage growth

[Ryan Strome]

4 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

The fallacy that the NDP in Alberta cost hundreds of millions of people jobs, babies were eaten, gay kids roamed the streets without their parents knowing their orientation and that the carbon tax was so crippling it forced people to spend almost $4 to $10 a month extra on heating.

 

Come on man get with the times

It's been cold the last few weeks. Can I borrow $10?

[Rob_Zepp]

Climate Barbie says this is a mean topic and should stop or puppies will die.

[hammertime]

6 hours ago, samurai said:

You simply do not know what you are talking about.   

Would a vocal minority please stand up.

[Warhippy]

2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Given the bolded part and the investment in development of the jet what does that tell you? Btw by 2019 the jet will be comparable in price to the super hornet.

 

This is also a silly argument Pm's are advised by their military leaders on what equipment best suits the military's needs.

You are ignoring the facts.

 

Chretien did not, As you stated sign a purchase agreement.  Either way the fighter issue has it's own thread.  I am still on board with Rafale/Airbus

[Warhippy]

2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

It's been cold the last few weeks. Can I borrow $10?

I dunno man.  It's ugly in bc.  That $10 Is like $13.27 here

[Tre Mac]

It seems voting in Canada is like picking a new color for a septic tank, no matter what you choose it'll always be full of #$%@.

[Violator]

6 hours ago, samurai said:

You simply do not know what you are talking about.   

Then enlighten me.

 

Whats your opinion?

[timberz21]

Personnally, I don't think any government is better/worse when it comes to the economy.  I believe that Canada's economy is mostly dependant on Global and US economy, and follows the waves of the market.  When governments put forth new significant programs/investments, however great or bad they are, if the global economy is down/up, Canada's economy will follow.  It might be a little bit better/worse, but overall it will follow the trend of the markets.

 

I think that's why voter turnout keep decreasing, as with globalisation, complexity and scale of the economy and the management of billions and billions $, nobody understand the platform and programs put forth by the parties.  If a party present a economic platform....half of the top economists will say it's good, the other half will say it's bad...how can the general population make their minds about these platforms.

 

[JM_]

7 hours ago, Warhippy said:

So...one year with a solid jump vs almost a decade of stagnation, increased prices, lost jobs, hyper low inflation, budget deficits, closed offices increased fees etc etc etc etc etc

 

It was time for the boy to go.  As evidenced by his now almost BILLION dollar Phoenix boondoggle which the Liberals are helping keep alive until they announced it's termination on Wednesday.

 

People can continue to nit pick small minor stats out of the entire picture but overall Harper did very little good for this country on the world stage or internally.

 

Who knew?

me. 

 

Thats OK, Harper can join Fantino in opening up a pot shop. 

[samurai]

4 hours ago, hammertime said:

Would a vocal minority please stand up.

Sure have a read.  I don't mind being the informed minority, meaning the one who uses facts.  Two Princeton researchers.  You can read the whole paper online. 

 

American Economic Review 2016, 106(4): 1015–1045 http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.20140913

Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration†

By Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson*

The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (our focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or scale policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future.

[samurai]

4 hours ago, Violator said:

Then enlighten me.

 

Whats your opinion?

Exactly, you stated an unqualified opinion and nothing more.   It is not about opinion but facts.   You would be hard to find an economist that agrees with you.   The research that contradicts you is just massive.  Take a look at this by two Princeton researchers.  You can read the whole paper online.    How would you explain that under Bush the US underwent one of the worst depressions in its history.   And that the Clinton era is seen as one of the greatest growth periods in US history.   Harper had a good ride but how would you account for the Chretien era which was equally a good time for the Canadian economy.  And of course left is one country isn't necessary left in another country.  That is a whole other issue.    

 

 

American Economic Review 2016, 106(4): 1015–1045 http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.20140913

Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration†

By Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson*

The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (our focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or scale policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future.

 

 

[Ryan Strome]

2 hours ago, samurai said:

Sure have a read.  I don't mind being the informed minority, meaning the one who uses facts.  Two Princeton researchers.  You can read the whole paper online. 

 

American Economic Review 2016, 106(4): 1015–1045 http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.20140913

Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration†

By Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson*

The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (our focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or scale policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future.

This isn't the Trump thread it's Canadian politics.

[Ryan Strome]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

me. 

 

Thats OK, Harper can join Fantino in opening up a pot shop. 

Pretty sure he is just fine in what he is doing. 

[samurai]

41 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

This isn't the Trump thread it's Canadian politics.

Look at the stats and research on the Canadian economy rather than comeback with obvious but misinformed rebuttals.  The basic findings of the study are applicable to most contexts. The larger more significant theme is that external variables like the health of global trade impact a local economy and gov't cannot do much about it.    

 

As far as Canada goes you can easily argue that the positive economic conditions in Canada started during the Chretien era.