Canada is led by an economic conservative with libertarian leanings.
We are led by a democratic-socialist with Marxist leanings.
... and so - there we have it.
... The financial collapse also battered our northern neighbor, Canada, although not quite to the same extent it did us. (Canada has more conservative banking and lending policies, which shielded them from the worst of the problems.) Instead of using a blizzard of government spending to correct a downturn in unemployment, Canada tightened its belt and rode it out.Predictable.
So how do the two compare? First, let’s look at the US levels of civilian employment since January 2007, eleven months before the recession started, to see how we’re doing:
As before, the red star denotes the passage of Porkulus. Since that point in time, employment sharply declined for most of the year, plateaued, and then rose a bit before falling off — but the rise was minimal.
How did Canada do without massive government stimulus spending? Well …
All the candidates running against the Dems should get these graphs, understand them, brief them and plan to use them as props as they discuss how they are going to repeal the latest bit of legislation coming out of the snake filled DC.
ReplyDeleteI didn't realize that libertarians were in favor of strong government control over the financial markets. Is that what Republicans and Tea Partiers are proposing for the US?
ReplyDeleteYour ignorance of economics and the Canadian political system are astounding. Take a few moments and review PM Harper's background in light of the Canadian Reform Party. By trying to be a smart a55 and change the subject - all you do is look stupid. If you like doing that - please go to another blog.
ReplyDeleteCDR, I say we demand his name and Party number so we can properly denounce at the next Committe meeting...
ReplyDeletepretty much same here in Poland - only positive growth blot in the EU despite not having great payoff aka extra spending :)
ReplyDeleteChange the topic? It's in your post: "<span>(Canada has more conservative banking and lending policies, which shielded them from the worst of the problems.)"</span>
ReplyDeleteAre conservative libertarians "<span>Canada is led by an economic conservative with libertarian leanings." </span>such as those in Canada looking to move our financial system towards one that is more like Canada's or not? "<span><span> I'm not sure what asking a question demonstrates about me, other than a request for clarity when there are conflicting remarks, but perhaps you can shed some light on your rush to judgement?</span></span>
ReplyDeleteDemocrats don't let the facts get in the way of their agenda. Every time you cut taxes - it increases revenue to the treasury - it's worked every time. What's insidious is that they simply want control. Facts on revenue generation don't matter, it's control that matters.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry readers - I fed a troll. I can hear his excited panting from here.
ReplyDeleteI'll put myself in time-out for setting a bad example. ... for a few minutes at least.
That's OK, you can just buy the first round at Stricklands next time :)
ReplyDeleteWharf Rat -- So -- explain Pres Clinton raising taxes -- and still the economic boomlet of the mid-to-late 1990s? I am the first to admit -- the magic of economics is sometimes lost on me, but the "cut taxes = happy days are here again" line doesn't always work out.
ReplyDeleteI think you also need to differentiate between what type of taxes & the affected tax brackets.
Newt Gingrich and a Republican Congress. Fiscal responsibility was injected.
ReplyDeleteThere is the Laffer curve, but I don't think we've gone anywhere near as far as we could in that respect. It's spending as much as taxing.
ReplyDelete"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
ReplyDeleteWell since I see we have no answers, there's a few other inconveniences about the data. The US was down ~3.6% (138000 to 133000 on a unit-less graph) at the point where recovery was passed, and Canada was down only ~2.3% (17200 to 16800 thousand employments) from peak to trough. On the US side this article conveniently ignores that the rate of change of employment went from negative (getting increasingly worse) to zero (stable decline) and then to improving after the stimulus was passed.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that is nicely ignored is that Canada too had a stimulus, although not as much money as the US (maybe because their decline wasn't as bad), they had one.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/n08/09-011-eng.asp
You can see the $ values for yourself at the link.
I asked a simple question because given that the economies are different (Canada has more restrictive lending practices) we shouldn't be calling for the same solution. Of course you can say that our employment numbers wouldn't have cratered as far without the stimulus package, but that would ignore that our employment numbers had already exceeded the total loss of Canada's as a percentage at the point the stimulus was passed.
If you want to hold the stability of Canada's economy up as an idol, it seems ironic that you don't have any interest in attaining their standards for lending etc.
Personally, I think you're talking about the wrong thing. If you want to know why the economy peaked and then tanked in 2007, look no further than the interest rates set by the Fed:
http://www.wsjprimerate.us/usprimerate-vs-libor-vs-fedfundstargetrate-chart.htm
When rates were dropped, it was already too late. Yes, we would have recovered without the stimulus, but the timing is unknown. If the government had stopped spending, it would have been a negative shock to the system. To say that we should have done what Canada did, without any desire to have the tax rates and stability that causes (limit rapid expansion and contraction) is illogical because you're comparing apples and oranges. It worked for Canada for a variety of reasons, inaction wasn't one of them.
Take a look at the sources of personal insults in this thread (smart a55, troll, socialist/communist, ignorant). No wonder we have such readiness issues, we still insist on shooting the messenger..... for asking a question. Oh, you think LCS is failing, "You're fired." You think we need an exit plan in Iraq "You're fired." I'm thrilled to see the free exchange of ideas is so much better in the "blogosphere."
Dude .... you never read anything here about LCS or Iraq either. Poor widdle AC.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said before, this is a closed self reinforcing circle of people that decry and insult those that question their assumptions or conclusions.
ReplyDeleteIt was a simple question. If you hold the libertarian/conservative leadership of Canada up as a model, do you hold the entire system up as a model, or just the parts that you agree with while ignoring those that you don't. Do the Republican Party and Tea Partiers hold Canada up as the example to follow, or not? Do we want the governmental controls in place that slow positive and negative economic changes or not?
I apologize that you find such questions so threatening that you feel the need to make personal attacks. It's unfortunate. :)
If we're so stupid and you're so smart, why do you hang around here? Unless it's because your the designated hitter from Kos and DU to stink the joint up anywhere more than 10 conservatives hang out..
ReplyDeleteCDR, I'm all in favor of banning this blithering idiot. He's not the least bit interested in discourse, remains ignorant of facts and willingly so, and wishes only to reduce the signal to noise ratio to the point where you can't hear the facts for the static.
<span>As I've said before, this is a closed self reinforcing circle of people that decry and insult those that question their assumptions or conclusions. </span>
ReplyDelete<span></span>
<span>This guy doesn't understand the hostility he engenders?</span>
<span></span>
<span>Go Figure.</span>
<span></span>
<span>Comes across as someone you would want to spend an extended deployment with, donch-yah-know....</span>
pssssss.....
The jury is not yet entirely back - I keep reading stuff that the banking and mortgage sector up there is about to fall on hard times. I am hoping that isn't the case, but the fact they aren't doing as poorly as the US in these sectors AT THIS TIME doesn't mean they won't have problems in the next 24 months. Here's hoping they don't
ReplyDeleteOT
ReplyDeleteByron - you've talked about how the shipbuilding sector is not replacing retiring employees, and the skills are not being renewed.
Bad news from NASSCO in SD today (theyare the only shipbuilder on the West Coast), they laid off 590 people: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jul/12/grsq-nasso-lays-shipyard-workers/
AC,
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding?
"<span> On the US side this article conveniently ignores that the rate of change of employment went from negative (getting increasingly worse) to zero (stable decline) and then to improving after the stimulus was passed. "</span>
And Mussolini made the trains run on time.
The decline levels off, and there is a slight bump in the data. However, the bump is about a third as large as the losses AFTER the massive stimulus was passed. And then? A decline. The end of which is not yet graphed. So for a little over a trillion dollars we bought ourselves a slight and temporary improvement.
Then it fits the model of Democratic Great Society Programs, Take money, fliter it through the Govnerment, then hand a few pennies back to the citizens and tell them what a great favor you did for them.
ReplyDeleteAnd they talk about getting rid of W,F&A? Not while there's still a vote to be bought!
Wasn't it de Toqueville who warned that America would last until its lawmakers figured out that they could bribe the electorate with their own money?
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm not kidding. That's what the chart says, it has nothing to do with Mussolini. If the stimulus caused an increase in the rate of loss of jobs, you could say that it had a negative effect. Canada and the US have different economies with different frictions on loans and businesses. Our employment numbers decreased >3% at the point of stimulus and Canada decreased just over 2% in total. The charts don't prove the conclusions of the article, especially when the article admits that the systems are different. It also doesn't discuss the second order effects of the bailout on the international markets, including Canada, nor does it address the stimulus used by the Canadian government.
ReplyDeleteThe Cabal, nice name. I appreciate you supporting my point that this is a group that neither desires nor respects differing opinions. Not one word about the article or the economy. Which facts am I ignorant on? Feel free to correct the purported errors. You took the time to complain about signal to noise ratio, without offering a signal other than personal insults. Ironic.
ReplyDeleteSid, Thanks for the kind words. I doubt i'd want to spend a deployment with someone that wasn't open to discussing topics without blaming the messenger. What <span>exactly</span> have I said that makes you feel hostility? If you feel I've said something erroneous, feel free to correct it.
Have a great day! :)
So Alpha,
ReplyDeleteMy point is this:
A massive, $trillion-plus "bailout" which included several de facto illegalities (read about the Chrysler bailout and which shareholders got what for compensation), unprecedented government interference in private industry and economic matters, and what is the result?
Nothing good, and plenty bad.
Those jobs that you point to as aleveling off and slight recovery are almost entirely government growth and census workers. The private sector continues to shed jobs.
The lax lending rules were forced on the Wachovias and CitiCorps and other big housing lenders by the US Government and CBC. You can still find film of the usual suspects decrying blacks being shut out of the American dream and threatening to haul lenders before Congress with charges of racism for not meeting wildly unrealistic minority mortgage quotas. None of those lenders wanted to be in the real estate business, but foreclosures were BOUND to happen. And when they did, again with the racism charges.
To make matters infinitely worse, the two quasi-government organizations, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, were active participants, thanks to Barney Frank, et al.
If you believe the recovery is "almost entirely government growth and census workers" feel free to offer up some data. Companies still have many reasons to be hesitant, but they aren't laying people off en mass as they were in late 2008 early 2009.
ReplyDeleteIf you'd like to take this to the real estate market topic, that's fine, but don't accuse me of changing topics. The real estate market and employment issues are connected, but not the same. I disagree that lax lending rules were forced on Wachovia and Citi. Show me the mandate for the acceptance of stated income loans, interest only loans, negative amortization loans, or adjustable rate mortgages by Wachovia or Citi. The truth of the matter is that the loans were being bundled as fast as they were approved and sold to eager institutional and hedge fund buyers. If the bank wasn't keeping the loan on their books, they had zero incentive to do their due diligence.
<span>The Federal National Mortgage Association or Fannie Mae was established in 1938, two years before Barney Frank was born. If you're referring to the CRA in 1977, Barney Frank wasn't in the US House until 1981. I understand your desire to blame Barney Frank, you fundamentally dislike gay people, but I suggest you show some causality instead of just assuming the connection.</span>
The core cause of the housing bubble was the rates dialed down by the Fed to avoid the economic impacts post 9-11. Those rates created tremendous demand for mortgages, both for individual buyers of homes and institutional buyers of bundled mortgages that assumed the mortgages were as reliable as treasuries.
AlphaCheck,
ReplyDelete"So far the recovery has favored the government-dominated apparat and those places where public workers congregate. After all, besides Wall Street, public-financed workers have been the big beneficiaries of the stimulus, with state and local governments receiving more than one-third of all funds. Public employment grew by nearly 2 percent over the past three years, while private employment has dropped by 7 percent."
From MSNBC, that right-wing mouthpiece that employs Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann.
As for my dislike of Barney Frank, yes, it must be because I "fundamentally dislike gay people". It certainly wouldn't be because I think him a card-carrying communist whose vision of government and individual rights is fatally corrosive to liberty. I suppose I dislike Obama because of his skin color and not his politics, either. Belief in the Constitutional role of government makes me a racist homophobe.
And you wonder why you are less than warmly received here? You are intellectually bankrupt. And you cover it by screaming that we are a closed society. We do have a nose for bullshit. And the regulars on the porch here smell it in the breeze routinely with you.
Hey Regis,
ReplyDeleteWell even if you consider him a communist, just say so. Don't mask the hatred with some illogical assertion. Either he had some material contribution to the housing market collapse, or he did not. Whether you think he's a communist is immaterial to what he did or did not do.
So the two numbers you offered as your data are over a period of three years, not since the recovery act was passed, are you surprised that public sector jobs grew while private sector jobs declined in a recession? Perhaps you don't understand that making a claim about the jobs data post recovery would mean you should provide data on employment post recovery, not a large swath around the recovery.
Just curious though, what do you think would have happened if the government ceased spending when there was a capitalization crunch? Public employees buy things and pay mortgages too. If you think they should have been fired, or the government have reduced spending while the economy was already headed downward, you have an interesting position indeed.
It is unfortunate that you can't stop the incessant personal attacks. Are you THAT insecure?
(snicker-snort)...If this guy is actually on active duty, bet he is helluva PITA to everyone both above and below him....
ReplyDeleteAnyway...
Total nonfarm payroll employment declined by 125,000 in June, and the
unemployment rate edged down to 9.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. The decline in payroll employment reflected
a decrease (-225,000) in the number of temporary employees working on
Census 2010. Private-sector payroll employment edged up by 83,000.
Among the marginally attached, there were 1.2 million discouraged
workers in June, up by 414,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently
looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.
The remaining 1.4 million persons marginally attached to the labor
force had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey
for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.
(See table A-16.)
Either he had some material contribution to the housing market collapse, or he did not.
ReplyDeleteRead this...
Oh SHIT! Not FACTS, sid! No! Not that!
ReplyDeleteAC,
I consider Frank a communist. I consider Obama a socialist-communist. I consider Holder a socialist-communist. I consider Sonia Sotomayor to be a socialist-communist. Why? Because of their own words and papers.
And Holder, Obama, and Sotomayor are race-baiters. They are every bit George Wallace circa 1960, but with the colors reversed.
And you, Alpha Check, I consider to be an arrogant, self-righteous, closed-minded jackass.
Any questions?
Oh SHIT! Not FACTS, sid! No! Not that!
ReplyDeleteAC,
I consider Frank a communist. I consider Obama a socialist-communist. I consider Holder a socialist-communist. I consider Sonia Sotomayor to be a socialist-communist. Why? Because of their own words and papers.
And Holder, Obama, and Sotomayor are race-baiters. They are every bit George Wallace circa 1960, but with the colors reversed.
And you, Alpha Check, I consider to be an arrogant, self-righteous, closed-minded jackass.
Any questions?
WSJ opinion page, classic.
ReplyDeleteURR..gotta remember this is a guy who (ostensibly) was flying on the USN's dime and left his gear down "halfway across Mobile Bay" out of MOB (presumably)...
ReplyDeletealpha check indeed.
Anyway...
OMG, Barney Frank was pro home ownership. Lots of people were pro home ownership. Are all of them "communists"? I didn't realize that encouraging home ownership was a bad thing in the US.
ReplyDeleteWhat did Frank <span>DO</span> that you're so opposed to? Frank's comments were in 2005. The inflation of the housing bubble started much earlier. If this is Frank's responsibility, why didn't the home price inflation start earlier? Why did it start when interest rates tanked post 9-11.
Are you opposed to encouraging home ownership in the US? Are you against the tax deduction for mortgage interest? Elimination of the mortgage interest deduction might help put home prices back to historically normal levels, but not many Americans would be for reducing the federal subsidies for home loans.
can't get around Frank's role in this alpha...
ReplyDeleteAre you opposed to encouraging home ownership in the US? Are you against the tax deduction for mortgage interest?
No...But your boy Big O will be floating an end to the mortgage exemption after the elections.
Remember.
You heard it here <span>first.</span>
"Pro home-ownership".
ReplyDeleteA rather benign title for forcing mortgage companies to make bad loans to meet racial quotas, and then laundering the risk by having the taxpayers foot the bill for those the lenders knew would fail.
What has Barney Frank done? Lemme see. I grew up in MA, and remember him as a wildly liberal anti-military wealth redistribution socialist-communist who hated capitalism and admired socialist Europe.
Then there was the Gobin affair in the mid-80s. Convicted drug user/child porn distributor who was his gay lover and driver, drawing salary from the taxpayers of MA.
Oh, and his 1997 affair with a 17 year old staffer, paying for nights in hotel rooms with tax money. His defense when confronted with the facts? You are discriminating against me because I'm gay. (A line from his buddy Gerry Studds.)
Then there was his role in the mortgages mess, his condemnation of Mark Sanford (the pot calling the kettle perriwinkle, I suppose), on the heels of doggedly defending Bill Clinton during the impeachment proceedings.
Other than that? Barney Frank hasn't done much to make me despise him. But thanks for asking.