Bank of Canada cuts rates again as economy contracts

[Mr. Ambien]

They were even too low for much of Greenspan's tenure, They were dropped because of I think the Asian Financial Crisis in 97' and then the Dotcom bubble burst, but they were kept low for too long, for no real reason. Everyone knows what ended up happening.

I consider low interest rates to be a form of stimulus (along with bailouts, TARP, etc.), and as proven over and over, governments who live by stimulus die by stimulus.

There are practically no examples in modern history of governments using stimulus and an economy suddenly recovering to the point where that stimulus is no longer necessary, and the likely debts incurred were paid off. It's pretty much always like a deadly drug where once they start, they can't stop. The problem is this perverted economic thinking that recessions aren't normal and part of a healthy economy, that is how prices contract and avoid runaway inflation. This drives up politicians' desire to prevent recession at all costs, and pass the buck to the next generation to get fracked. Of course, since no normal economy can sustain growths seen via stimulus, it means perpetual stimulus, hence why everyone knows the US can't raise interest rates. The recession it would cause, from a phony stimulated economy trying to normalize, would be huge. And since politicians prefer to make idiots (namely the public, as well as people invested in stimulated parts of the economy, like the stock market, finance, and real estate) happy than do the right thing, can rest assured the punch bowl will continue to be spiked until there is absolutely no choice left in the matter.

Canada should be well aware of this, we're seeing it with a bird's eye view, but we're heading in the same direction, without the ability to sustain it even a fraction of what the US has.

[Realtor Rod]

It amazes me how people can be so divided on politics. Harper sucks, Chretien was good or Chretien sucked and Harper is great.

It seems like they all have their good and bad spots. All in all, they all seem pretty terrible.

How is New Zealands parliament?

[Guest]

I consider low interest rates to be a form of stimulus (along with bailouts, TARP, etc.), and as proven over and over, governments who live by stimulus die by stimulus.

There are practically no examples in modern history of governments using stimulus and an economy suddenly recovering to the point where that stimulus is no longer necessary, and the likely debts incurred were paid off. It's pretty much always like a deadly drug where once they start, they can't stop. The problem is this perverted economic thinking that recessions aren't normal and part of a healthy economy, that is how prices contract and avoid runaway inflation. This drives up politicians' desire to prevent recession at all costs, and pass the buck to the next generation to get fracked. Of course, since no normal economy can sustain growths seen via stimulus, it means perpetual stimulus, hence why everyone knows the US can't raise interest rates. The recession it would cause, from a phony stimulated economy trying to normalize, would be huge. And since politicians prefer to make idiots (namely the public, as well as people invested in stimulated parts of the economy, like the stock market, finance, and real estate) happy than do the right thing, can rest assured the punch bowl will continue to be spiked until there is absolutely no choice left in the matter.

Canada should be well aware of this, we're seeing it with a bird's eye view, but we're heading in the same direction, without the ability to sustain it even a fraction of what the US has.

Yes, our economy operates on a cycle of booms and busts. What causes these booms and busts? Speculative bubbles - in other words, the increased diviation between a good's price and value.

Those who proclaim the answers to our problems lie within the problem itself are driven by ideology alone, pure and simple.

[Guest]

Why we would need a temporary foreign worker program, in the middle of a recession in particular, is kind of mind boggling.

I would have no problem canceling that.

And I wouldn't mind ending the CMHC so that the banks didn't have the ability to send all the risk of a lot of their lending to the feds. No wonder THEY have record profits. With all the reward of high levels of lending, and very little of the risk, then indeed, they are a worthy target of your ire.

But you will never win people over to a middle ground complaining about corporate profits. Companies simply work with the rules they have been given. And in general, Canadians have a vested interest in a strong corporate environment.

you can't pretend that lobbiests do not exist...

[Realtor Rod]

Why we would need a temporary foreign worker program, in the middle of a recession in particular, is kind of mind boggling.

I would have no problem canceling that.

And I wouldn't mind ending the CMHC so that the banks didn't have the ability to send all the risk of a lot of their lending to the feds. No wonder THEY have record profits. With all the reward of high levels of lending, and very little of the risk, then indeed, they are a worthy target of your ire.

But you will never win people over to a middle ground complaining about corporate profits. Companies simply work with the rules they have been given. And in general, Canadians have a vested interest in a strong corporate environment.

CMHC doesn't really work that way. It is quite a process including foreclosure and the lender experiencing substantial loss. I have had cmhc insured mortgages in foreclosure for well over a year with per diems in the double digits per day. Cmhc is the last resort and rarely pay out.

[Mr. Ambien]

Yes, our economy operates on a cycle of booms and busts. What causes these booms and busts? Speculative bubbles - in other words, the increased diviation between a good's price and value.

Those who proclaim the answers to our problems lie within the problem itself are driven by ideology alone, pure and simple.

[Guest]

An ad hominem, shocking.

[Mr. Ambien]

An ad hominem, shocking.

Doesn't know labour is merely an asset of the company.. (one facet of company assets do not determine product value)

Doesn't know what ad hominem is..

Knows pretty much nothing on the subject.. shocking.

[Guest]

Doesn't know labour is merely an asset of the company.. (one facet of company assets do not determine product value)

Doesn't know what ad hominem is..

Knows pretty much nothing on the subject.. shocking.

Well aren't you a nice guy.

I'm pretty sure labelling me as some Stalin sympathizer rather than directly addressing what I post fits my point nicely.

I'm also fairly certain that you don't have a single rebuttal for anything I write. Instead, you throw out labels..."liberals, Marxists" and so on all the while casting those who disagree with you as people who don't understand economics.

What about labour "merely" being an asset of a company. Expand on it. Are you going to reference all other kinds of assets? Go ahead, construct the argument. I'll tear it down. And for what it's worth, I never disputed that labour wasn't an asset of a company.

[Mr. Ambien]

Well aren't you a nice guy.

I'm pretty sure labelling me as some Stalin sympathizer rather than directly addressing what I post fits my point nicely.

I'm also fairly certain that you don't have a single rebuttal for anything I write. Instead, you throw out labels..."liberals, Marxists" and so on all the while casting those who disagree with you as people who don't understand economics.

What about labour "merely" being an asset of a company. Expand on it. Are you going to reference all other kinds of assets? Go ahead, construct the argument. I'll tear it down. And for what it's worth, I never disputed that labour wasn't an asset of a company.

There's no serious rebuttal to someone who argues an imaginary form of economics that has never been in place even where he lives.

[Lockout Casualty]

Poor IdioticRight hasn't been around enough to know what to expect yet. Hey, at least you didn't get called a stoopeed librul. Could have been worse.

[Standing_Tall#37]

Chretien's Canada sucked during the relatively peaceful economic boom years of the '90s, I'd hate to see what it would be like if he was still running the show now.

At least he allowed Canadians to have sovereignty, at this point Harper has me feeling like Canada is nothing more than the 51st state.

[Guest]

There's no serious rebuttal to someone who argues an imaginary form of economics that has never been in place even where he lives.

In all seriousness, this statement shows a great deal of ignorance.

What "imaginary" form of economics am I discussing. I assumed we were talking about capitalism.

[Mr. Ambien]

In all seriousness, this statement shows a great deal of ignorance.

What "imaginary" form of economics am I discussing. I assumed we were talking about capitalism.

Capital"ism", not labour"ism", comrade.

[Guest]

Capital"ism", not labour"ism", comrade.

An ignorant troll - got it.

[Lockout Casualty]

An ignorant troll - got it.

[Mr. Ambien]

An ignorant troll - got it.

Truths be an unpleasant one -- a cog in the machine does not make the machine when the cog can often be replaced with innovation. Kinda throws a wrench in your labour centric fetish.

[Guest]

Truths be an unpleasant one -- a cog in the machine does not make the machine when the cog can often be replaced with innovation. Kinda throws a wrench in your labour centric fetish.

The critisisms you make on what you think are my views appear confused.

Innovation is a huge part of our economy. One of the greatest benefits we have to be honest. I like to refer to it as creative destruction - the origin of what you're bringing up.

Back to your original "argument". Innovation in no shape or form takes away from my claim that labour is the basis of value. Where does innovation originate from? Does it fall from the sky? How does one task replacing another, or a machine replacing a manual job, negate this.

Either engage in those questions or let's leave it alone. I'm honestly not interested in cheap shots etc.

[Mr. Ambien]

The critisisms you make on what you think are my views appear confused.

Innovation is a huge part of our economy. One of the greatest benefits we have to be honest. I like to refer to it as creative destruction - the origin of what you're bringing up.

Back to your original "argument". Innovation in no shape or form takes away from my claim that labour is the basis of value. Where does innovation originate from? Does it fall from the sky? How does one task replacing another, or a machine replacing a manual job, negate this.

Either engage in those questions or let's leave it alone. I'm honestly not interested in cheap shots etc.

Why are you asking vague questions in lieu of an actual opinion? If a capitalist economy was so labour centric why does labour function merely as an intangible asset? How does an intangible asset determine value of a product instead of buyers and sellers?

[Guest]

Why are you asking vague questions in lieu of an actual opinion? If a capitalist economy was so labour centric why does labour function merely as an intangible asset? How does an intangible asset determine value of a product instead of buyers and sellers?

You are confusing the issue. Labour is not an intangible asset in the sense that it is nothing until it has been applied, or consumed, by the employer. Up until that point it has produced no value. That is not to say it does not have a price - but that price is based off future expectations.